R. Szymanski

The appellants appealed two awards from a sole arbitrator in a commercial arbitration regarding a failed real estate project.

The first award granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims related to loan advances as time-barred.

The second award increased the amount of security for costs.

The Superior Court held that the standard of review for commercial arbitrations remains reasonableness under Sattva, as Vavilov did not overrule it in this context.

The court found the arbitrator's decisions on both the limitation period and the security for costs were reasonable and correct, and dismissed the appeals.

The defendants sought costs of $22,806.35 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully dismissing the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion based on an expired limitation period.

The plaintiff, now self-represented, argued she could not pay due to financial hardship.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the defendants' prior offer to settle for $5,000, and awarded the defendants costs fixed at $18,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an investment-related civil claim on the basis that it was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit arising from a leveraged investment arrangement arranged through financial advisors.

The court held that the plaintiff knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the material facts giving rise to the claim by May 2009 at the latest.

Because the statement of claim was not issued until January 2012, the action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff band sought to enforce a judgment debt against the defendant band member by seizing his certificates of possession for lands situated on the reserve.

The defendant argued that section 29 of the Indian Act prohibits the seizure of reserve lands under legal process.

The court held that while section 29 protects the underlying Crown title to reserve lands from seizure by non-Indians, section 89(1) expressly permits an Indian or a band to seize the real or personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve.

The court ordered the defendant to transfer his certificates of possession to the band to satisfy the debt.