M. Coleman

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiffs’ action against a contractor defendant, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to their financial hardship, the cautious inclusion of the contractor as a defendant, their continued belief in the claim’s merit, and alleged prejudice from former counsel’s pleading deficiencies.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that impecuniosity and subjective belief in a claim do not justify avoiding costs, particularly where plaintiffs chose to continue litigation despite insufficient evidence.

Considering duplication arising from the defendant retaining two law firms and applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the amounts claimed.

Costs of the motion and the action were fixed at reduced amounts payable by the plaintiffs.

The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing negligence claims arising from alleged flooding of the plaintiffs’ property during a highway construction project.

The plaintiffs alleged that the grading contractor failed to keep the construction site free of obstructions, causing culvert blockages and diversion of water onto their property.

The court refused a late informal request to amend the statement of claim to add additional flooding dates, holding the amendments introduced new causes of action barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

On the merits, the evidentiary record showed no proof that the contractor caused any blockage and no expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care or its breach.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim and all cross‑claims against the moving defendant.