Lucas Cutler

The plaintiff, a distributor of lighting retrofit kits, sued the defendant local distribution company for over $20 million in damages after its business failed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently delayed and suspended approvals for customer rebates under a provincial energy conservation program, raising unfounded safety concerns.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, as the rebate program was exclusively for the benefit of customers.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendant's safety concerns were legitimate, the processing times were not unreasonable, and the plaintiff's financial collapse was caused by internal disputes, loss of inventory, and withdrawal of bank financing rather than the defendant's actions.

Claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and misfeasance in public office were also dismissed.

The applicants, minor children of the deceased, brought a motion for an interim preservation order requiring the deceased's estranged spouse to pay $25,000 in life insurance proceeds into court pending the determination of their dependant support application.

The court applied the three-part test for interim preservation under Rule 45.02 and found the applicants established a strong prima facie case that the estate assets were inadequate for their support.

The motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay the funds into court and pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her failure to respond.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the motion was unreasonable under Rule 20.06.

The defendant argued for partial indemnity costs.

The court found that while the motion was misguided and caused delay, the defendant did not engage in improper conduct, noting that a case conference judge had permitted the motion to proceed without objection from the plaintiffs regarding its suitability.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $12,500.