Patrick G. Muise

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing a collection action as statute-barred under the two‑year limitation period, the defendants sought costs of $17,047.26 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the governing principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The judge found the claimed amount excessive given the simple nature of the statute‑bar issue and the approximately 90 hours of legal work performed.

The court also noted that the defendants’ conduct had fostered the impression that payment would eventually be made and that they had already received insurance compensation related to the underlying loss.

Costs were therefore reduced and fixed at a lower amount.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a collection action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff sought recovery of approximately $62,000 for construction work performed in 2006–2007 but did not commence the action until 2012.

The plaintiff argued that promissory estoppel prevented reliance on the limitation defence and that a breach of trust claim under the Construction Lien Act was only discovered in 2011.

The court held that the claim for breach of contract was discovered by August 2008 at the latest and that there was no written acknowledgment of liability sufficient to restart the limitation period or support promissory estoppel.

The court further held that the breach of trust claim was discoverable at the same time as the breach of contract through reasonable diligence, rendering the entire action statute-barred.