Michael John Houle

Following the dismissal of the applicant's property claim, the respondent parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the applicant's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and complicated a simple contractual dispute.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the settlement offers did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court reduced the requested amounts due to duplication of effort, excessive use of senior counsel, and unreasonable refusal of a settlement offer by one respondent, awarding total costs of $47,500 across the three respondents.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership over a 13-acre parcel of land, relying on concepts of constructive/resulting trust, unjust enrichment, proprietary estoppel, and adverse possession.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the legal requirements for these remedies and was barred by the doctrine of laches due to significant delay in asserting his claim after multiple property transfers.

Following a previous decision ordering reinstatement, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal resumed the hearing to resolve three outstanding issues regarding the respondent's reinstatement.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the Deputy-Clerk position without the need to undergo a competition process, as she already met the minimum qualifications.

The Tribunal also determined that her retroactive wages for 1997 should be calculated based on the Deputy-Clerk salary of $38,000.