William D. Dunlop

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to attend examinations for discovery, and the defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, arguing they were undischarged bankrupts and nominal plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that the individual plaintiff was not a nominal plaintiff and that it would not be just to order security given the plaintiffs' strong case on the merits that their financial ruin was caused by the defendants' actions.

The court granted the motion to compel discovery, ordering the defendant to attend by video in short increments to accommodate his health issues.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and breach of warranty regarding a roof installation.

At trial under the simplified procedure, the appellant withdrew its non-suit motion and elected to call no evidence.

The trial judge accepted the respondent's evidence that the roof leaked persistently within the 10-year warranty period and that the appellant failed to correct the problem.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, causation, limitation period, or damages.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for costs under Rule 37.09, arguing that the plaintiff had abandoned its motion for an interim injunction regarding a collapsed slope.

The court found that the plaintiff's motion was not abandoned, but rather became moot because the municipality issued orders requiring the plaintiff to remediate the slope at its own expense.

The court dismissed the municipality's motion for costs, noting that the underlying issues of causation and responsibility remained to be determined at trial.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiff.