R. Andrew Biggart

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs had previously commenced an action in 2011 based on the same core facts, which was dismissed as abandoned.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was postponed due to fraudulent concealment, claiming they only discovered confirming evidence in 2013.

The court found the 2011 claim provided irrefutable evidence that the plaintiffs had discovered their claim by July 2011.

The court rejected the fraudulent concealment argument, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff sued the defendant shipping company for lost profits after a software update allegedly deleted a custom mark-up feature, causing the plaintiff to underbill its clients for two years.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, relying on an exclusion clause in the software agreement that barred claims for lost profits.

The court granted the motion, finding the exclusion clause applied, was not unconscionable, and did not violate public policy.

The court also granted the defendant's counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

Following a decision in which the respondent municipality successfully obtained an order approving a demolition order and finding the applicant in contempt, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant did not dispute the disbursements or the scale of costs but argued the quantum was conflated with the contempt penalty.

The court applied the principles for elevated costs, finding this was a rare and exceptional case where the applicant's behaviour warranted sanction.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs fixed at $27,790.90.

The property owner's dwelling was damaged by fire, leading the municipality to issue a demolition order.

The owner previously obtained a consent order staying the demolition on the condition that she take specific steps to repair the property within six months.

After the owner failed to take any of the required steps for over 18 months, the municipality brought a motion for an order to demolish the property and to find the owner in contempt.

The court granted the motion, ordering the demolition of the property and finding the owner in contempt of the previous order, with the penalty phase adjourned.