3 total
The court awarded $15,000 in costs to a successful defendant represented by pro bono counsel.
This endorsement addresses costs following a successful motion for default judgment brought by the defendant Joseph Gavin Briggs against the plaintiffs Joe Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. Briggs was awarded $45,285.00 in damages on his counterclaim.
The court, applying factors under Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, found the plaintiffs' obstructive conduct increased litigation costs and that Alessandro had abused Briggs' trust.
The court also affirmed that costs may be awarded even when counsel acts pro bono.
Briggs was awarded $15,000.00 in costs.
The Court of Appeal upheld the addition of a third party and the final dismissal of its limitation defence due to delayed discovery caused by the Crown's failure to disclose.
This is an appeal concerning the addition of a third party (Cruickshank Construction Limited) to a lawsuit and the application of limitation periods.
The defendants in the original action sought to add Cruickshank as a third party, alleging it was responsible for winter maintenance on Highway 401 where an accident occurred.
The motion judge allowed the addition, finding the claim was not statute-barred and that Cruickshank could not plead a limitation defence.
Cruickshank appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in finding a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering the claim and in preventing them from pleading a limitation defence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the discovery analysis, and affirming the judge's discretion to make a final determination on the limitation issue given the comprehensive record and the age of the litigation.
Motion to add third party granted; limitation period extended due to Crown's delayed disclosure of independent contractor.
The defendants in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion to add an independent winter maintenance contractor as a third party.
The Crown and the proposed third party opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.
The court granted the motion, finding that the claim was not discoverable until the Crown finally produced patrol records and a representative for discovery, having previously failed to plead the contractor's existence or provide timely disclosure.
The court held that the defendants exercised reasonable diligence and rebutted the presumption of knowledge.
