Lorraine E. Takacs

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action against one defendant, the court addressed costs of both the motion and the underlying action.

The successful defendant sought full indemnity costs alleging delay and unreasonable conduct by the plaintiff during the litigation and costs process.

The court held that while some conduct was questionable, it did not reach the exceptional threshold required for full indemnity costs.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the amount claimed and ordered a lump sum costs award covering both the motion and the action.

In a motor vehicle accident action, the plaintiff sought damages after a multi-vehicle collision and later moved to add the lessee of a rented vehicle as a defendant after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period.

The added defendant brought a summary judgment motion asserting the claim was statute‑barred.

The court held that the defendant’s failure to oppose the earlier motion to add him as a party did not estop him from raising a limitation defence.

Applying the discoverability provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002, the court found the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in identifying the lessee despite knowing the vehicle was rented.

The evidence demonstrated minimal investigative steps within the limitation period.

The action against the lessee was therefore dismissed as statute‑barred.