R. Allan

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a Promissory Note for $293,210 against the defendants.

The defendants argued that the note was invalid and raised a counterclaim for set-off based on various alleged debts.

The court found that the defendants' evidence lacked credibility, the counterclaim was statute-barred and without merit, and the Promissory Note was valid and enforceable.

Alternatively, the court found the defendants liable on the basis of unjust enrichment.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the counterclaim was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due to procedural and legal irregularities, the court determined the costs of the motions.

Although there was mixed success on other minor procedural issues, the defendant was the successful party on the most significant request.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,882.82 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the proceeds of a property sale, relying on a separation agreement between the deceased and the defendant.

The defendant argued the agreement was signed under duress.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because the notice of motion failed to comply with Rule 37.06 by not specifying the rules relied upon, and lacked a proper evidentiary record for either a Rule 20 or Rule 21 motion.

The court also struck the defendant's counterclaim with leave to amend to properly plead the request to set aside the separation agreement.

Following two procedural motions in a construction-related civil action, the successful party sought costs including on a substantial indemnity basis due to a prior settlement offer.

The court held that although the offer to settle was reasonable, the resulting order was not as favourable or more favourable than the offer and therefore did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the claimed legal fees and preparation time reasonable.

The successful party was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.