Sabrina Hussain

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement arising from email exchanges between counsel.

The dispute concerned charitable funds provided to a defendant organization to hold in trust that had not been repaid.

The court found that the emails demonstrated a complete agreement on essential settlement terms and that counsel had ostensible authority to bind the parties.

The defendants’ failure to execute formal settlement documentation did not negate the enforceability of the agreement.

Judgment was granted enforcing the settlement terms, with damages, interest, and costs awarded.

Following a motion in which the defendant successfully set aside a default judgment and obtained leave to file a statement of defence, the court determined the appropriate costs order.

The successful moving party sought costs of the motion, while the plaintiff sought higher costs relating both to the motion and the earlier default hearing.

The court found both counsel’s time and rates reasonable but rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to recover costs for earlier proceedings of which the defendant had no knowledge.

Considering the relevant factors, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful moving party, payable only if it ultimately succeeded at trial.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and writ of seizure and sale arising from a breach of contract claim related to services for preparing SR&ED tax credit documentation.

Applying the test articulated by the Court of Appeal, the court considered promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, existence of an arguable defence, potential prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

Although the court expressed doubts about the credibility of the defendant’s evidence regarding service and the factual basis of the defence, it accepted that the motion was brought promptly and that there was a plausible explanation for the failure to defend.

The court also found that the defendant had an arguable defence on the merits concerning whether it qualified for SR&ED credits and whether the contract had been terminated.

Balancing the relevant factors, the court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the action arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision on the Gardiner Expressway.

The evidence, including a collision reconstruction report and witness statements, indicated that another driver lost control, changed lanes abruptly, and struck the moving defendants’ vehicle while speeding.

The court found no evidence that the moving defendants breached the standard of care of a prudent driver.

Applying the summary judgment principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded that the evidentiary record permitted the necessary factual findings and legal determinations.

The claim against the moving defendants was dismissed and costs were awarded.