Robert MacRae

The defendant, Central-McKinlay International Ltd., brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, Raymond Lacroix and R & L Lacroix Transportation Inc., under Rule 56.01(1)(c) due to an unpaid Divisional Court cost order of $8,467.50.

The court found the trigger for security for costs was met and the onus shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate that ordering security would be unjust.

Considering the low likelihood of success for the plaintiffs' claims (which largely relied on an unenforceable oral agreement for real property interest due to the Statute of Frauds), their history of intentional delay in prior proceedings, and questionable financial decisions, the court determined that ordering security for costs was just.

The defendant Fladgate brought a motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against it for conversion, detinue, and negligence regarding certain drill cores.

The plaintiffs did not respond to the motion.

The court found that the Statement of Claim failed to plead material facts supporting the intentional torts or a duty of care.

Furthermore, the claims were statute-barred as they related to consulting reports delivered in 2008 and 2011, well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The action against Fladgate was dismissed with costs fixed at $9,000.

The applicants brought an application to set aside a 2011 will made by their brother/uncle, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.

The application was converted into an action, and the issue on this motion was who should be appointed as the incapable person's litigation guardian.

The applicant nephew sought to be appointed, offering to abandon his claim in the action.

The respondent opposed the appointment, arguing the nephew had a conflict of interest because his father stood to benefit if the will was set aside.

The court agreed, finding that the nephew could instruct counsel in a way that unfairly prejudiced the respondent, and dismissed the request to appoint the nephew as litigation guardian.

This decision addresses costs following a partially successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendant.

The defendant sought full summary judgment, but the court dismissed only the negligence claims, allowing nuisance and strict liability claims to proceed to trial.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the defendant's success limited and the plaintiff successfully defended the motion on other issues.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in responding to a request to admit.

Exercising its discretion, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, finding the requested amount reasonable.

The accused, a professional engineer, was charged with criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm following the partial collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof parking deck, which killed two people and injured another.

The Crown alleged the accused failed to properly inspect the mall and identify severe corrosion of the steel structure caused by decades of water infiltration.

The court found the accused's engineering work was shoddy and inadequate, but concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable engineer, given expert evidence that other professionals had also missed the severity of the corrosion.

The accused was acquitted.

The plaintiff, a former bank manager, sued his financial advisors for negligence, misrepresentation, and undue influence after his commuted pension investments depleted faster than anticipated.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of his losses and the defendants' alleged role by 2010 at the latest, but did not commence his action until 2014.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the limitation period defence.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion to approve its Fourth Report, its fees and disbursements, and to amend the Receivership Order to increase the receiver's charge from $300,000 to $700,000.

The secured creditor supported the motion, and the respondent opposed it but made no submissions.

The court granted the motion, noting that the receiver's costs had increased significantly due to the respondent's opposition to a previous sale and approval motion.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a receivership application, specifically motions to approve an asset purchase agreement and a cross-motion to postpone the sale.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Receiver due to unfounded allegations impugning its integrity.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Secured Creditor and Legacy Hill Resources Ltd. The court declined to hold Mr. Wetelainen, a principal of the respondent, personally liable for costs, finding no evidence of fraud or abuse of the bankruptcy process for a wrongful collateral purpose, despite his breach of a prior order and the respondent's inability to pay.