Panagiotis Peter Diavolitsis

This decision addresses a special case brought under Rule 22.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claim and damages following a Court of Appeal decision.

The plaintiff argued for a broad interpretation of her claim, including losses of pension, salary, benefits, and investment opportunity from 2008.

The defendants contended that the Court of Appeal's reasons, which upheld a finding that the limitation period commenced in 2011 upon the CRA's deregistration of the Individual Pension Plan (IPP), narrowed the claim to only damages related to the tax consequences of the IPP's deregistration.

The court agreed with the defendants, holding that the plaintiff's prior positions taken to avoid summary judgment and succeed on appeal were binding, thereby limiting the claim to tax-related losses from 2011 onwards and excluding earlier alleged damages.

The plaintiffs suffered a fire at their home and submitted a claim to their insurer, the defendant.

A dispute arose over repair and living expenses, leading the plaintiffs to issue a notice of action.

However, they failed to serve and file a statement of claim within the required 30 days.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to extend the time to serve and file the statement of claim.

The defendant opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant had been promptly notified of the loss, had investigated the claim, and would not suffer significant prejudice by the extension.

The defendant owner brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant insurer's cross-claim against her.

The owner's son, whose license was suspended, took her vehicle without her knowledge or consent while she was sleeping and was involved in a collision.

The court applied the test for vicarious liability under the Highway Traffic Act, finding that the owner had not relinquished possession or control of the vehicle to her son.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the owner were dismissed.

The defendants were successful on a motion to produce a document over which the plaintiff had asserted solicitor-client privilege.

The defendants sought costs of $11,406 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff submitted a bill of costs for $3,566.52.

The court found the defendants' claimed hours excessive for a relatively straightforward motion and emphasized the principle of proportionality.

Applying Rule 57, the court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $5,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The appellant insurer appealed a Superior Court judgment ordering it to indemnify the respondent for costs incurred in defending a slip and fall lawsuit.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in finding that issue estoppel did not bar the claim and that the underlying lawsuit triggered a duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be denied because the court had found the defendants committed a fraud or misrepresentation in the underlying real estate transaction.

The court held that, despite sympathy for the plaintiffs, the action had been commenced outside the applicable limitation period and should not have been brought so late.

Costs therefore followed the result, though the defendants’ claimed partial indemnity costs were reduced.

The court fixed partial indemnity fees at 66 percent of the full indemnity amount, with HST applied and disbursements allowed as claimed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging misrepresentation in connection with the purchase of a residential property, claiming the vendors falsely represented that the property had no flooding, water issues, or prior renovations.

Evidence showed that the purchasers discovered moisture, rot, and structural concerns within the first two years after closing.

The defendants raised a limitation defence under the Limitations Act.

The court held that the purchasers had sufficient knowledge of material facts to trigger discoverability well before the action was issued, and that reasonable inquiry would have revealed the alleged misrepresentation earlier.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order permitting the respondent to amend their pleadings to correct a misnomer.

The respondent had inadvertently named the wrong, but closely related, corporate entity in a slip and fall claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant had probable knowledge it was the target of the litigation within the limitation period and suffered no irreparable prejudice.