Robert Leslie Colson

The appellant, a bank in liquidation, appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

Counsel for the appellant advised the court that he was unable to obtain clear instructions from his client and that the instructions received indicated it was not in the appellant's interest to prosecute the appeal.

The Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis of the written record and found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Costs decision following two motions in an employment action alleging constructive dismissal and entitlement to a bonus.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside a noting in default and successfully resisted the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion concerning whether a bonus should be paid entirely in cash or partially through restricted share units.

The court found that plaintiff’s counsel improperly refused to consent to setting aside the noting in default, unnecessarily increasing litigation costs.

Substantial indemnity costs of $9,500 were awarded for the motion to set aside the noting in default.

Partial indemnity costs of $20,000 were awarded for the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend its statement of claim to add a new defendant and several new causes of action arising from the termination of a lease involving advertising space on a building wall.

The proposed amendments included claims for wrongful interference with economic relations, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of trust, rectification, and recovery of rents.

The court held that most of the proposed claims were statute‑barred under the two‑year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002 and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the ten‑year limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act applied merely because the dispute involved a lease of real property.

However, the court allowed a limited amendment adding the proposed defendant for a claim relating to alleged non‑payment of rent for November and December 2006, finding a genuine issue as to whether the RPLA applied to that specific claim.