5 total
Costs denied to both parties where defendant's offer to settle was an invitation to capitulate.
Following the dismissal of both the plaintiff's action for constructive dismissal and the defendant's counterclaim for breach of restrictive covenants on summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.
The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle, while the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for defending the counterclaim.
The court found the defendant's offer was an invitation to capitulate rather than a genuine compromise, and ordered that each party bear their own costs.
Cross-motions for summary judgment granted; both constructive dismissal claim and restrictive covenant counterclaim dismissed.
The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, resigned and sued her former employer for constructive dismissal after her hours were reduced.
The defendant counterclaimed for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed both the action and the counterclaim.
The court found the termination, non-competition, and non-solicitation clauses in the employment contract were unenforceable.
However, the court also found the plaintiff was not constructively dismissed, as the reduction in hours merely reverted her schedule to its historical norm and did not breach an essential term of the contract.
Appeal dismissed; partner's claim for misallocated profits not barred by limitation period or laches.
The parties were partners in a dental practice.
The appellant's wife acted as the bookkeeper and failed to allocate profits in accordance with a 2004 agreement between the parties.
The misallocation was discovered in 2009 during negotiations to terminate the partnership.
The trial judge found the 2004 agreement binding, ordered an accounting, and awarded the respondent $119,056 for the misallocated profits.
On appeal, the appellant argued the claim was barred by the limitation period, laches, and estoppel.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the misallocation was not reasonably discoverable until 2009 and that the respondent could not have acquiesced to conduct of which he was unaware.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge's finding of breach of warranty for leaking roof upheld.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and breach of warranty regarding a roof installation.
At trial under the simplified procedure, the appellant withdrew its non-suit motion and elected to call no evidence.
The trial judge accepted the respondent's evidence that the roof leaked persistently within the 10-year warranty period and that the appellant failed to correct the problem.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, causation, limitation period, or damages.
Appeal dismissed; will interpreted using extrinsic evidence to grant life interest with remainder to residue.
The appellant appealed a trial judge's interpretation of a will regarding a house.
The testatrix's marriage contract provided that her husband could live in the house after her death but would make no claim against her estate.
The Court of Appeal found the will ambiguous and considered extrinsic evidence, concluding that the testatrix left the house in trust consistent with the marriage contract, but subject to that, the house fell into the residue for her son.
The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
