Robert W. Trifts

The defendants in a franchise dispute moved for security for costs against the plaintiffs, alleging the plaintiffs' parent companies were in financial difficulty.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet the initial threshold of showing the specific plaintiff corporations had insufficient assets.

Furthermore, the court declined to exercise its discretion to order security because the defendants' counterclaim was inextricably connected to the main action, and the motion was brought with undue delay shortly before trial.

The appellant was successful in an oppression action against the respondents.

The respondents had served an offer to settle nine calendar days before trial, which technically amounted to fewer than seven days under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The trial judge treated the offer as a valid Rule 49 offer and awarded costs accordingly.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the 'no near miss' policy applies to the timing requirement under rule 49.03, meaning the offer was not a valid Rule 49 offer.

However, the Court upheld the costs award, finding that the trial judge was entitled to take the offer into account under his residual discretion pursuant to rule 49.13.

The plaintiff moved to strike a statement of defence and abuse of process counterclaim arising from a solicitor's negligence action against former criminal counsel concerning advice to enter a U.S. plea agreement.

The court held that the defence pleading was replete with evidence, argument, quotations, and scandalous character attacks contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure, and struck it in its entirety with leave to amend.

The court declined to strike the abuse of process counterclaim under rule 21.01(1)(b), holding it was not plain and obvious the claim could not succeed where the plaintiff had arguably made his innocence and reputational vindication an unnecessary material issue in the negligence action.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

Costs determination following a motion for injunctive relief relating to access to data and the payment of invoices between commercial parties.

The court considered the parties’ relative success at different stages of the proceedings.

The defendant succeeded on the initial hearing by requiring the plaintiff to comply with its payment obligations before obtaining equitable relief, while the plaintiff succeeded on the return of the motion by challenging the legitimacy of post-order invoices.

Given the divided success, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court judgment.

The court applied the four-part test under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a fixed intention to appeal, a good explanation for the delay, merit to the appeal, and no prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to meet at least three of the four requirements, noting a lack of fixed intention, unexplained delay, and no obvious merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order finding that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the claim fell outside the ambit of the arbitration clause in the minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The tenant of a commercial building operated a bar and sought to exercise an option to renew its lease.

The landlord refused to renew, alleging the tenant was in default due to continuous over-serving of alcohol, which resulted in intoxicated patrons causing disturbances, vomiting, and urinating around the building.

The application judge granted the tenant's application for a declaration that it had validly renewed the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's appeal, finding that the tenant was in subsisting breach of the lease covenants at the operative date for renewal.

The Court held that the landlord was not required to give notice of default to refuse renewal, and that the landlord's acceptance of rent waives forfeiture of the existing term but does not bar it from refusing the renewal.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers and the independent tester (ULC) of an allegedly defective smoke alarm, seeking damages for pure economic loss.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the manufacturers whose products he did not purchase.

However, the court allowed the negligence claim against the manufacturer of his specific smoke alarm to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that a claim for pure economic loss based on a defective safety device would fail.

The negligence claim against the independent tester was struck out as it owed no prima facie duty of care to the purchaser.