Mark MacDonald

The plaintiff successfully opposed the defendants' motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing the motion, as there was no factual or legal basis for their limitation period defence regarding the nuisance and snow loading claims.

Additionally, the plaintiff had served an offer to settle the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $80,673.62 after applying a 20% reduction to the fees claimed for being moderately excessive.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the basis that the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff claimed damages for anticipated snow loading caused by the construction of an adjacent City Hall addition, as well as damages in nuisance for noise, dust, vibration, and hoarding during construction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court held that a claim for snow loading damage does not arise until actual damage occurs, and the nuisance claim may constitute a continuing cause of action.