Michael Meredith

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to correct the pleaded date of discovery of an alleged fraud, which as originally pleaded placed the claim outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that allowing the change would deprive them of a limitation period defence and that a presumption of prejudice applied under Rule 26.01 and s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act.

The court held that the amendment did not add a new claim or introduce a claim outside the limitation period and therefore the presumption of prejudice applicable to amendments after expiry of a limitation period did not apply.

The court further found that the defendants failed to demonstrate non‑compensable prejudice and that the discoverability issue remained a matter for trial or summary judgment.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was granted and the defendants were permitted to amend their defence to plead discoverability.

The defendants brought a motion seeking reconsideration or rehearing of reasons issued by a motions judge allowing an appeal from a Master's report in a construction lien dispute.

They relied on Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 123(4) of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the reasons were incomplete and failed to address several issues before the court.

The court held that the earlier decision constituted a valid decision under the Courts of Justice Act and that s. 123 applies only where a judge is unable to render a decision, not where a party disputes the adequacy of the reasons.

Any alleged legal error was properly the subject of an appeal rather than reconsideration.

The motion was dismissed and the plaintiff was awarded costs of $45,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $58,000.

The plaintiff argued the defendants achieved only mixed success because one of their legal arguments failed and sought costs on that issue.

The court held that the defendants achieved complete success because the action was dismissed in its entirety and that unsuccessful arguments do not constitute divided success where they were reasonably advanced.

While the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, it granted the defendants their full partial indemnity costs for the motion.

Costs of $39,910.36 were ordered payable within 30 days.

Following dismissal of the applicants’ motion concerning the legal validity of a long‑standing agreement registered on title to residential property, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondents, who were wholly successful on the motion, sought over $32,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court determined that partial indemnity costs should be calculated at 60% of counsel’s hourly rate and accepted the reasonableness of time spent by a senior real estate lawyer assisting with the matter.

However, a $2,000 disbursement for legal research was disallowed for lack of supporting documentation under Rule 57.01(5) and Form 57A of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ultimately fixed costs at $22,809.82 payable forthwith.

The applicants sought to strike an agreement from the land registry that had been registered on the title of their residential property for nearly 25 years.

The agreement, made between siblings, contained a right of first refusal and provided for equal distribution of net proceeds upon the sale of the property.

The court found that the agreement was intended to survive the death of the parties and bind their heirs.

The court also held that the addendum binding the applicant's spouse was supported by valid consideration in the form of forbearance.

Finally, the court confirmed the agreement was properly registered on title under both the Registry Act and the Land Titles Act.

The application was dismissed.