Scott A. Crocco

The appellants commenced an action in 2017 for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution.

After years of delay and failure to comply with a timetable order, the motion judge dismissed the action for delay in 2025.

On appeal, the appellants argued the motion judge erred in finding the delay was intentional and in failing to specifically find prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's finding of intentional delay was supported by the record and that inordinate delay can itself be prejudicial, with the burden on the appellants to disprove prejudice.

The plaintiff sought damages arising from an arrest at a restaurant-bar, alleging assault, wrongful arrest, and breach of the Charter following a dispute over a child seated at the bar.

After finding that the plaintiff loudly used profane language, disturbed patrons and staff, refused repeated requests to leave, and physically confronted an off-duty police officer, the court held that the officers had objectively and subjectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for causing a disturbance and trespass.

The court rejected the plaintiff's account of a prolonged beating, accepted the defence evidence that the plaintiff resisted handcuffing, and held that the force used, including a distracting blow during the struggle, was reasonable and authorized by law.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment where the plaintiff recovered $400,000 and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $171,888.04 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the costs were disproportionate or that an assessment was required, fixing costs at $150,000 payable to the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim did not plead facts capable of supporting any of the causes of action against the defendant.

The Court also agreed with the motion judge that there was no basis to grant the appellants leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing its application for a determination that the respondent tenant must pay $431,000 for parking lot repaving under its lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the application judge's conclusion that the work significantly extended the life of the parking lot and reduced operating costs, which were factual findings entitled to substantial deference.

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion for directions on whether the Auctioneer was entitled to a Buyer's Premium on a private sale of the debtor's assets.

The motion judge denied the premium because the Offer to Purchase contained an entire agreement clause and did not mention the premium.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding that the Auction Service Agreement between the Receiver and the Auctioneer mandated the premium, and denying it would result in commercial absurdity and a windfall to the Receiver.