Richard Robert Fernand Nolin

Following a three-and-a-half-week jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $36,000 in damages.

As this amount was less than the vanishing deductible, the action was dismissed.

The defendant sought costs of $211,234.92, having beaten a pre-trial offer to settle.

The court reduced the costs award to $150,000, noting that the defendant's late production of documents and lengthy cross-examination unnecessarily extended the trial by one-and-a-half weeks.

The plaintiff was granted 12 months to pay the costs award.

The appellant surveyors prepared a reference plan that incorrectly portrayed a right of way as a straight line, failing to show a curve that circumvented a rock outcrop.

The reference plan was deposited on title.

A dispute arose between the neighbouring property owners over the use of the road.

The surveyors brought a motion to rectify the reference plan under section 160 of the Land Titles Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, holding that the registered title was indefeasible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a reference plan does not independently create an interest in land and that the court has jurisdiction to rectify the boundaries of the right of way.

A homeowner sued a contractor for damages after basement water problems persisted following the installation of new weeping tile.

The court considered conflicting expert evidence regarding whether the tile had been installed in compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

The court found that the contractor failed to install the weeping tile below the basement floor in the area of a later addition, resulting in improper drainage and continued water infiltration.

Although other potential causes of leakage existed, the contractor remained responsible for the cost of correcting the defective installation.

The plaintiff was awarded partial damages for the cost of reinstalling weeping tile around the affected portion of the house.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim for unpaid construction work as statute-barred.

The motions judge found that the invoice rendered by the appellant was a demand obligation under s. 5(3) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the limitation period commenced on the date the invoice was rendered, precluding the discoverability principle.

The Divisional Court majority upheld the decision, confirming that an invoice payable on demand is a demand obligation and time starts to run when the demand is made.

The appeal was dismissed.