Peter Anderson

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, alleging it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, or alternatively, by an executed release.

The action concerned alleged defects in the basement floor slab of a new home.

The court found that the plaintiffs had discovered their claim well before the two-year limitation period preceding the statement of claim's issuance and that ongoing communications or investigations did not extend the period.

The court also upheld the validity of a release signed by the plaintiffs.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of children's clothing taken from unlocked lockers at a recreational centre in March and April 2015.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for an 18-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

The court accepted the joint submission, noting that while the offences appeared to be simple theft, the circumstances revealed concerning underlying issues.

The accused has a documented history of pedophilia, paraphilias, and sexual interest in young girls' underwear.

A psychiatric assessment recommended anti-libidinal medication, sexual offender treatment programming, and strict conditions regarding contact with minors.

The conditional sentence includes house arrest with limited exceptions, prohibition on contact with children under 12, and mandatory medical treatment for libido reduction.

Following written reasons granting judgment to the applicant, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondents engaged in oppressive and unfair conduct and failed to respond to settlement overtures or to file costs submissions.

The court found the time spent by counsel and the claimed hourly rates to be reasonable, and accepted the disbursements claimed.

Given the respondents’ conduct and the fact that the application sought to enforce an entitlement already established in prior proceedings, the court concluded that a substantial indemnity award was justified.

Costs of $12,203.43 were fixed against the respondents jointly and severally.