Matthew J.A. Benson

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for breach of a renovation contract.

The defendant failed to complete the work to a reasonable standard, requiring the plaintiff to hire another contractor for remedial work.

The court granted default judgment for compensatory damages representing the cost of completing the work ($146,775.63) plus pre-judgment interest and fixed costs of $5,000.

The plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was denied, as the compensatory damages were deemed sufficient to achieve the objectives of retribution, denunciation, and deterrence.

The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations regarding environmental contamination at 65 Heward Avenue.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that the plaintiffs knew of the contamination upon purchase, the limitation period had expired, and the claim lacked sufficient particulars for negligence, strict liability, and statutory claims under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were not barred by delay or pleading over, the plaintiffs' knowledge of contamination was not fatal, the limitation period issue required evidence, and the claim provided sufficient particulars for all causes of action, including novel applications of strict liability.

This case concerns an application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, which was challenged by the deceased's husband and daughter on grounds of undue influence and testamentary fraud.

The objectors alleged that the deceased's son and his wife fraudulently influenced the deceased to disinherit her daughter and significantly reduce her husband's inheritance by instilling false beliefs about the daughter's husband and the husband's financial well-being.

The court found no evidence that the son and his wife perpetrated or encouraged these alleged falsehoods.

The deceased's testamentary changes were determined to be her own decisions, made gradually over time, based on her long-standing concerns about protecting the family's wealth from her son-in-law, and after receiving independent professional advice.

The court dismissed the objections, declared the wills valid, and granted the application for the Certificate of Appointment.

The applicant, a sub-contractor, sought summary judgment against the respondent directors for breach of trust under the Construction Act, seeking to declare the claim not compromised by a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The applicant argued that the respondents' use of trust funds for operations constituted misrepresentation or wrongful conduct, allowing the claim to survive the proposal's compromise of director claims.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the respondents' knowledge of the breach of trust, whether their conduct was misrepresentation or wrongful/oppressive, the parties' understanding of the consumer proposal's "quittance," and whether Construction Act trust provisions survive a consumer proposal.

Credibility assessment and a more fulsome evidentiary record were deemed necessary.

The appellants appealed an order striking their Statement of Defence for failing to comply with interlocutory orders and documentary disclosure obligations.

The motion judge had found deliberate non-compliance over 2.5 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, upholding the striking of the Statement of Defence, finding the motion judge's decision was open on the record, legally sound, appropriate, and proportionate given the lengthy and deliberate delay.

The court also dismissed the argument for a "last chance" order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the costs of the action from $5,000 to $3,000 due to a calculation error.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a trial where the plaintiffs were largely successful in their claim on a promissory note and in defending against most set-off claims and a counterclaim.

The plaintiffs were awarded $256,332.07 (including pre-judgment interest) and had beaten their formal Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court considered the principles of indemnity, promotion of settlement, proportionality, and reasonableness under Rule 57.

Despite the defendants' arguments for a lower award, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $100,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, applying partial indemnity before the offer and substantial indemnity after.