2 total
Court reduces excessive claimed costs and allocates motion costs between plaintiffs and intervener.
Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action, the court determined costs payable to the successful defendants and the allocation of costs involving an intervener.
The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the summary judgment motion and partial indemnity costs for the remainder of the action.
The court applied the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that certain time claimed by counsel was excessive relative to the complexity of the motion and the work performed by other counsel.
Costs for the summary judgment motion were fixed with the intervener and the plaintiffs each responsible for portions of the award, while the plaintiffs were ordered to pay additional partial indemnity costs for the remainder of the action.
Claim dismissed as statute‑barred after discovery of investment loss more than two years earlier.
The defendants brought motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an investment loss claim on the basis that it was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The remaining plaintiffs alleged losses arising from an offshore hedge fund investment and argued that the limitation period should begin only after they received legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the material facts required under s. 5(1)(a) when they learned their investment was lost and expressed their intention to sue.
The court rejected the argument that a plaintiff’s lack of financial sophistication delays discoverability until legal advice is obtained.
The claim was discovered no later than July 31, 2007 and the September 2009 statement of claim was therefore statute‑barred.
