Neeta Sandhu

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a trial judgment, alleging the responding parties committed fraud by submitting false dump tickets for excavated soil.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of false representations, no evidence of loss, and no new material facts that could not have been discovered prior to trial.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the responding parties, noting the moving party's unfounded allegations of fraud and the lack of merit to the motion.

This costs endorsement addresses competing costs claims arising from a motion regarding holdback allocation and distribution in a construction lien reference.

Flocor Inc. sought costs thrown away against the Urban Parties (Urban Integrated Group Inc., Urban Mechanical Contracting Ltd., and Standard Fire Protection Inc.) claiming they misrepresented the contractual relationship between the defendants.

The Urban Parties sought costs against Flocor for unnecessary expense incurred in responding to Flocor's evidence and costs claim.

The court rejected Flocor's claim for costs thrown away, finding that Flocor had ample notice of the correct contractual relationships and that its intended legal position lacked sufficient merit.

The court awarded costs to the Urban Parties for the costs submissions phase only.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and four counts of failing to comply with a condition of a release order.

The offender sexually assaulted his former intimate partner while subject to a release order prohibiting contact with her.

He breached the non-contact condition by contacting her by telephone the day following the assault.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years jail followed by 12 months probation, along with ancillary orders.

The defence argued that the offender's pre-sentence custody of 310 real days, credited as 465 days, was sufficient time served given mitigating factors including harsh detention conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of approximately 15.5 months jail followed by 12 months probation, taking into account aggravating factors including persistence in sexual advances despite repeated refusals, the statutory aggravation of intimate partner violence, the offender's criminal record, and breach of court orders, balanced against mitigating factors including remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

This endorsement addresses a case conference during an ongoing trial, where both parties sought to admit further evidence.

The court set out a process for the parties to attempt consent on the admission of new documents, established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, and clarified that all communications should be between counsel of record or self-represented parties.

The court also outlined procedures for cross-examination on affidavits and provided for further case management as needed.

The court granted partial summary judgment in favour of Western Surety Company on its claim for exoneration against the defendants.

The decision reviews the legal principles underpinning exoneration clauses in surety indemnity agreements, the appropriateness of partial summary judgment, and the application of these principles to the facts.

The court found that the exoneration claim was discrete and severable from indemnification claims, that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, and that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to exonerate Western in the amount of $3,990,000.

This decision involves a sexual assault trial where the accused, Dru Norris, was charged with multiple counts including sexual assault and breaches of release conditions.

The court applied the framework from R. v. D.W. to assess the credibility and reliability of the complainant L.T. and the accused.

The judge found the accused's evidence inconsistent, illogical, and evasive, while accepting the complainant's testimony as credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and the breaches of release conditions.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and costs decision resulting from four consolidated actions related to a construction project.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence (trucking invoices and dump tickets) without requiring the truck drivers to testify, and by misapprehending evidence regarding soil quality and excavation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly admitted the documents under the principled approach to hearsay through viva voce testimony, especially since the appellants had not objected at trial and had taken an 'all or nothing' approach by alleging fraud.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the poor soil conditions and the necessity of trucking soil offsite.

The appeal regarding the apportionment of storage costs for a Ferrari given as compensation was also dismissed.

Four actions arising from a commercial construction project were tried together.

The owner, acting as its own general contractor, alleged that the site supervisor, excavator, and other contractors colluded to defraud it by overbilling for excavation, trucking, and materials, and claimed the site supervisor breached a fiduciary duty.

The excavator and site supervisor registered construction liens for unpaid invoices and compensation.

The court dismissed the owner's fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding no evidence of false representations or vulnerability.

The court upheld the construction liens, awarding the excavator $399,990.12 for unpaid work and lost profit, and awarding the site supervisor $150,000 for his services, while ordering the return of a Ferrari given as partial payment.

This is a costs endorsement following a nine-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages ($54,365.25) and the defendants a small set-off ($4,500.00).

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants' conduct prolonged the trial and that a Rule 49 offer was more favourable than the judgment.

The defendants argued for proportionality in simplified procedure cases and that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, found the plaintiff far more successful and that the defendants' actions contributed to the trial's length and complexity.

Despite the simplified procedure, the court emphasized that proportionality should not undercompensate a litigant for legitimately incurred costs, especially when the opposing party's conduct prolonged the proceedings or advanced unmeritorious defenses.

The court fixed costs at $45,000.00, all-inclusive, in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff requested a reconsideration of the court's original costs award of $38,000, noting that a sealed Rule 49 offer to settle had not been brought to the judge's attention.

The court reviewed the offer and found that the plaintiff was more successful at trial than the offer advanced.

Applying Rule 49, the court determined the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After applying reductions for duplication of effort and proportionality, the court increased the costs award to $58,000.

The plaintiff manufacturer sued for unpaid invoices arising from the supply of loading dock restraint systems, while the defendant dealer counterclaimed for replacement costs and lost business opportunities based on alleged defects, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and equitable set-off.

The court found the defendant had selected the product on its own, knowingly took a commercial risk, and failed to prove any product defect.

The defendant's metallurgy expert was admitted but given no weight because his opinion was biased, methodologically unsound, and based on unverified assumptions.

The court held there was no breach of warranty, no negligence, no negligent misrepresentation, and no basis for equitable set-off.

Judgment was granted for the unpaid invoices with contractual pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and partial indemnity costs.