Larry Reimer

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff argued that he brought the action in good faith, suffers from a head injury, and has limited income.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $10,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion seeking retroactive leave under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence and continue an action against the police board and several officers for false arrest and related claims.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's history of litigation against the police and the evidence provided in support of the current claim.

The court found that while the proceeding was not an abuse of process, the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of showing reasonable grounds for the proceeding, as he provided only a bald affidavit adopting the statement of claim and failed to refute police disclosure records indicating he was intoxicated and caused a disturbance.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment of over $5.1 million in outstanding invoices for bitumen supplied to the defendant.

The defendant argued the claim was partially statute-barred and that the parties had entered into a new agreement allowing the defendant to withhold payment to set off costs from alleged roadway deficiencies caused by the plaintiff's product.

The court found the claim was not statute-barred, as the limitation period began 30 days after the statement was delivered.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the existence of the new agreement and ordered a mini-trial on that issue.

The plaintiff fell from the flatbed of a pick-up truck operated by the defendant, a teammate, after a parade.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the hockey club.

The plaintiff's claim against the club was dismissed on consent.

The driver cross-claimed against the club for contribution and indemnity, alleging the club failed to ensure players were safely transported back to the arena.

The club moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claim.

The court found that even if a duty of care existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, as the plaintiff was an adult who voluntarily chose to walk instead of riding the club's float back.

The motion was granted and the cross-claim dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The plaintiff sued ten fuel providers for losses arising from fraudulent fuel card transactions.

The defendants brought motions to sever the proceedings.

The parties agreed to sever the claims against the Imperial defendants and stay the remaining claims pending the outcome of the Imperial action.

Shell brought a separate motion to stay the action against it based on a forum selection clause designating Alberta as the exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Shell's motion, finding that the policy against a multiplicity of proceedings constituted 'strong cause' to override the forum selection clause.