Michael James Reid

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's claim for development charges as statute-barred, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $21,941.47.

The plaintiff argued the costs should be drastically reduced to $2,104.50, asserting the defendants unnecessarily focused on substantive defences rather than solely on the limitation period.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the underlying factual footprint had to be developed regardless of the focus, and that the defendants' costs were reasonably incurred.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $17,500 all inclusive.

The plaintiff sued its land planner and construction manager for professional negligence, alleging they failed to apply for a building permit before a new municipal by-law came into effect, resulting in the plaintiff paying $266,157.22 in development charges.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motions, finding that the plaintiff discovered the material facts of the claim in 2011 when it learned the charges could have been avoided with a timely permit application, making the 2015 actions out of time under the Limitations Act, 2002.