Linda Smits

Following a successful summary judgment motion against the corporate defendant for breach of contract under the simplified procedure, the plaintiff sought costs.

The corporate defendant did not file responding cost submissions.

The court awarded the plaintiff its requested costs of $7,800 on a partial indemnity basis, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the maximum simplified procedure damages recovered and the corporate defendant's failure to actively defend the claim.

A former director and investor brought a motion for summary judgment alleging negligent misrepresentation by corporate directors, the chief financial officer, and an engineering consultant arising from a private placement investment that later became worthless after the corporation entered receivership.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations concerning reserve reports, a bank borrowing base notice, and the intended use of proceeds of the financing.

The court held that many alleged representations were made to the plaintiff in his capacity as a director rather than as an investor, raising significant duty of care issues and rendering reliance problematic.

The court also found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether misrepresentations occurred, whether they were negligent, and whether reliance was established.

In addition, most claims were found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, an investment adviser, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal after being terminated.

The employer counterclaimed for expenses and costs of correcting trading errors.

The court found the employer had just cause for dismissal due to the plaintiff making unauthorized trades and misrepresenting facts to a client and the employer.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, and the employer's counterclaim was granted in the amount of $63,179.66.