Andra Maxwell-Baker

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded non-pecuniary damages, the court determined the issues of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the prescribed rate of 3.0 per cent from the commencement of the action, declining the defendants' request to average the rate or shorten the period due to delay.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no justification for it, and awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $175,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an action as statute barred under the notice provisions of the Municipal Act.

The court held there was no dispute that written notice had not been given within 10 days as required by s. 44(10), and the appellant therefore bore the onus under s. 44(12) to establish a reasonable excuse and absence of prejudice to the municipality.

The motion judge's reasons were found to be careful and considered, and the appellate court found no error in the analysis or in the application of the governing principles.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligent misrepresentation.

They alleged the respondents negligently misrepresented that a property severance had been obtained in 1996.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the representation was made, the appellant knew nothing had been registered.

Under the Planning Act, registration is required for a valid severance.

The court held that the appellants' loss was caused by their own error of law, for which the respondents could not be held accountable.

The Children's Lawyer appealed two orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the Children's Lawyer lacked standing to bring the appeal as she had only appeared on the motion below to request an adjournment and did not seek to be appointed Litigation Guardian or intervene as a party.

The actual Litigation Guardian did not appeal the orders.