Roger J. Gillott

The defendant successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's jury notice and sought costs of $80,461.65 on a substantial indemnity basis or $61,175.38 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The court rejected the defendant's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in refusing to withdraw its jury notice despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the expectations of the parties, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $42,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's jury notice in an action arising from a tender process for the refurbishment of a nuclear reactor.

AECL argued the case was too complex for a jury, that a jury trial against a federal Crown agent is prohibited by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA), and that the plaintiff sought equitable relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that the factual and legal issues were too complex for a jury and that section 26 of the CLPA applies to AECL, prohibiting a jury trial.

The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was seeking equitable relief.

The appellant transported contaminated soil to the respondent's transfer station.

The motion judge concluded that these stand-alone transportation services were not lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error and relying on established case law.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an action commenced approximately 25 years after the events in question.

The trial judge had dismissed the action as statute-barred by the Limitations Act and under the equitable doctrine of laches, noting that key documents were lost, parties dissolved, and witnesses deceased.

The Court of Appeal found no error of fact or law, concluding that the respondent had been substantially prejudiced by the passage of time, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant owner entered into a construction contract with the contractor, which included a performance bond issued by the respondent surety.

The contract contained a cost-sharing provision for savings achieved during construction.

The contractor ceased operations before paying the owner its share of the savings.

The owner completed the work and claimed the savings from the surety under the bond.

The trial judge found that while the bond covered the cost savings, the owner's claim failed because it did not promptly declare the contractor in default and notify the surety, causing prejudice to the surety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, dismissing both the appeal and the surety's cross-appeal regarding the bond's coverage.