Rolf Piehler

The plaintiff mortgage syndicate brought a motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim regarding a defaulted second mortgage.

The defendants, who had not made any payments, alleged unparticularized fraudulent behaviour by the plaintiffs' agents.

The court struck the statement of defence and counterclaim as they disclosed no reasonable defence or cause of action.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sued her mortgagee, its realtors, the purchasers, and the mortgagee's lawyer, alleging an improvident sale of her property under a power of sale.

The defendant lawyer moved to strike the claim against him under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the elements of unlawful act conspiracy, specifically failing to plead an unlawful act or that the lawyer's conduct was directed at her rather than simply advancing his client's interests.

The claim against the lawyer was struck without leave to amend.

The claimant and the bankrupt appealed two decisions of the Registrar in Bankruptcy that refused to extend the time for the claimant to appeal the Trustee's Notice of Disallowance of her claim to a beneficial interest in a property, and subsequently granted the Trustee's motion to sell the property.

The Superior Court found that the bankrupt had standing to appeal.

The Court held that the Registrar made palpable and overriding errors of fact in applying the test for an extension of time, specifically by ignoring evidence that the claimant formed an intention to appeal within the prescribed time and had a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The appeals were allowed, the Registrar's decisions were set aside, and the time to appeal the disallowance was extended.

Following a three‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s claim for $68,506.25 was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted because there was no Rule 49 offer triggering such consequences and no reprehensible conduct by the opposing party.

The court also adjusted the claimed partial indemnity rate, finding that a 67% recovery of actual counsel rates was excessive and that a rate approximating 60% of substantial indemnity was more typical.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors, including a refused settlement offer, the court awarded a global costs amount reflecting fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sued the defendant for a commission of $68,506.25 under a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) after the defendant purchased a home using another brokerage.

The court found that the BRA had been repudiated by the defendant and that the plaintiff accepted the repudiation by its conduct in failing to provide further services.

Alternatively, the plaintiff repudiated the agreement by failing to assist the defendant in locating a home, which the defendant accepted.

The claim was dismissed.