M. O'Bonsawin

The moving parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion to compel the responding party to attend an examination in aid of execution.

The court disallowed costs claimed for the preparation of costs submissions and for the time of a lawyer who attended cross-examination as a witness.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the moving parties reasonable costs fixed at $4,500.

The plaintiff, Christopher Callow, brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to correct the name of the plaintiff to his corporation, C.M. Callow Inc., four years after the cause of action arose.

The defendants opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired and it was an attempt to add a new party.

The court found that the defendants were aware the contract was with the corporation and would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

Applying the doctrine of misnomer, the court granted the motion to amend the pleadings, finding special circumstances existed to justify the correction.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions from discovery undertakings, produce an insurance policy, and produce instruction letters sent to its expert witness.

The court held that the defendant did not require leave under Rule 48.04 to bring the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer one of the two follow-up questions and to produce the insurance policy, as it was a subrogated claim and the policy was relevant.

However, the court dismissed the request for the expert's instruction letters, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege and the expert reports already met the requirements of Rule 53.03(2.1).

The plaintiff real estate brokerage and its agent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by all parties at a pre-trial conference.

The defendant vendors opposed the motion, arguing they did not understand the English proceedings or the settlement document due to a language barrier, and did not intend to release their counterclaim.

The court rejected the language barrier argument, noting the defendants had retained unilingual English professionals for the underlying transaction, conducted prior pleadings in English, and were represented by bilingual counsel at the pre-trial conference.

The court found a clear meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the settlement and granted summary judgment enforcing the agreement.