Martin Edward Bufton

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and avoid administrative dismissal under Rule 48.14.

The underlying action involved a family dispute over a beneficial interest in a property.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing personal difficulties and issues retaining counsel.

Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate any non-compensable prejudice resulting from the delay.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, but costs were awarded to the defendant as the plaintiff was seeking an indulgence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to validate service of a statement of claim on two defendants, or alternatively to extend the time for service.

The plaintiffs had failed to formally serve the defendants within the six-month deadline but had provided a courtesy copy to their counsel, and the defendants had notified their insurer.

The defendants argued they would be prejudiced because they had shredded old tenant files after the service deadline.

The Master found the defendants had notice of the claim well before shredding the files and thus created their own prejudice.

The motion was granted, service was validated, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2010 order terminating his access to his daughter.

The original order was made after a trial where the court found the respondent had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the child, displayed extreme hatred toward the mother, and prioritized his own interests over the child's welfare.

The respondent sought to establish a material change in circumstances by arguing the child was older, he had other children, and the child wished contact with him.

The court found no material change in circumstances and dismissed the motion, noting the respondent continued to display the same problematic behaviors and attitudes that formed the basis of the original order.

Following a two-day trial, the plaintiff succeeded on liability but recovered only $24,000, far below the $850,000 claimed and within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

In this standalone costs endorsement, the court declined to award the plaintiff partial indemnity costs despite a more favourable judgment than his offer to settle, relying on proportionality, the disparity between the amount claimed and recovered, the parties' reasonable expectations after damages were fixed, and adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff.

The court also refused the defendants' request for costs because their evidence was likewise found purposely untruthful.

No costs were awarded to either side.

The court determined costs following the disposition of a civil action involving claims, counterclaims, and third party proceedings.

The third party claims and counterclaims were deemed dismissed under Rules 24.04 and 24.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the plaintiff should indemnify the defendants for any costs payable to the third parties and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants for defending the action and for the third party claims.

Costs were fixed for motions, third party proceedings, and the main action in favour of both groups of defendants, with reductions reflecting reasonable expectations and prior related litigation.