Who is Richard McCluskey?

Richard McCluskey is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2012 to 2012.

What courts has Richard McCluskey appeared in?

Richard McCluskey has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Richard McCluskey handled?

Richard McCluskey has 3 cases on record from 2012 to 2012.

What judges has Richard McCluskey appeared before?

Richard McCluskey has most frequently appeared before Justice A.C.R. Whitten, Justice Peter B. Hambly, Justice P.B. Hambly.

Richard McCluskey

3 total

Butera et al. v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation et al., 2012 ONSC 5295

Following the dismissal of an action alleging misrepresentations relating to the establishment of a Mitsubishi dealership, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $325,000 after successfully obtaining summary judgment dismissing the claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act and lacking evidentiary merit.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle of reasonableness, including access to justice concerns discussed in appellate authority.

While the defendants’ legal work was substantial and effective, certain disbursements and the overall magnitude of the claim were considered excessive.

The court therefore reduced the claimed amount and fixed costs at $150,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

SCJSep 20, 2012

Applicant Counsel

Butera v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, 2012 ONSC 4980

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an alleged franchise agreement and negligent misrepresentations regarding the viability of a Mitsubishi dealership.

The court found that the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claim more than two years before commencing the action.

Furthermore, the court held that the alleged misrepresentations were forward-looking forecasts, which are not actionable, and that the entire agreement and release clauses in the dealer agreement provided a complete defence.

The action was dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for an unpaid debt was allowed.

SCJAug 31, 2012

Applicant Counsel

Telestat Canada v. Juch-Tech, Inc., 2012 ONSC 2785

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of portions of an international arbitral award under the International Commercial Arbitration Act and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The respondent argued that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding attorney’s fees and arbitration costs because the arbitration clause required each party to bear its own costs except in the specific context of an early termination charge.

The court held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award general attorney’s fees and costs after rejecting the contractual early termination provision that allowed such recovery.

As the parties had not expressly agreed in writing to amend the arbitration clause to allow fee‑shifting outside that provision, the cost award was unenforceable.

The court dismissed the application to enforce the attorney’s fees and cost components of the arbitral award and held that post‑judgment interest would be governed by the statutory rate under the Courts of Justice Act.

Respondent Counsel