Martin Zatovkanuk

The applicant bank sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order awarding $30,000 in costs to the respondent Crown.

The costs were awarded after the Crown responded to an application involving a dissolved corporation and a void property transfer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's discretionary costs award did not meet the strict test for leave under Rule 62.02(4), as there was no conflicting decision, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no matter of general importance.

The defendant moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action arose from a motor vehicle accident, and the defendant argued the claim was statute-barred because the plaintiff ought to have discovered his chronic pain claim within two years of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the discovery evidence filed by the defendant on the summary judgment motion, and that the motion judge correctly applied the discoverability principles to find the plaintiff had exercised reasonable diligence in investigating whether his injuries met the statutory threshold.