Michael Saelhof

This endorsement addresses cost issues following a summary judgment motion and an allegation of judicial bias raised by the plaintiffs.

The judge declined to recuse himself, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $25,000 in costs to Thomson Mahoney Delorey (TMD) as per agreement.

However, the Shirley defendants were awarded no costs for the motion, as they had attended on a watching brief without formal participation.

No additional costs were awarded for dealing with the bias allegation.

The defendant law firm, Thomson Mahoney Delorey Barrister, Solicitor (TMD), brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for negligence, conspiracy, and intrusion upon seclusion, or alternatively for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, self-represented, largely conceded the negligence and conspiracy claims.

The court dismissed the negligence and conspiracy claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and alternatively as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), or for lacking a genuine issue for trial under Rule 20.

For the intrusion upon seclusion claim, while it disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the court granted summary judgment dismissing it under Rule 20, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that TMD had a lawful justification for obtaining the plaintiffs' credit report, and a reasonable person would not find the invasion highly offensive given the context of threatened litigation and the public nature of much of the information.

All claims against TMD were dismissed.