Russell MacCrimmon

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, the defendant sought costs of $9,618.18.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, responded with pseudolegal OPCA arguments rather than addressing the costs factors.

The court noted the defendant's costs were reasonable but reduced the amount slightly to be scrupulously fair.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount of $7,264.00 on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff sued the CEO of her employer, a federal Crown corporation, in his personal capacity over a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The defendant moved to strike the claim.

The court found that the plaintiff could not sue the CEO individually for breach of an employment contract and noted the plaintiff's reliance on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) concepts.

The court granted the motion, struck the statement of claim, and stayed the action, leaving the plaintiff at liberty to pursue a claim against her actual employer.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in a duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, while the respondent maintained it was for one and that the parties agreed to double the price for two units.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual finding that the quote was for a single furnace.

The court also dismissed the appellant's claims regarding trial unfairness and bias, concluding the appeal should be dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Ian and Kent Hawkins, brought a motion to remove the estate trustees (their brother Carl and brother-in-law Garry) appointed under their late father's will, alleging a conflict of interest due to ongoing litigation over the estate's primary assets.

The plaintiffs also sought to prevent the trustees from controlling access to the deceased's former solicitor's file.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the heavy onus to remove estate trustees was not met, as there was no evidence that the trustees' continuation in office would inevitably impede the proper administration of the estate.

The court also held that concerns regarding access to the solicitor's file could be adequately addressed through the ordinary rules of civil procedure, though the court ordered the action to be case managed.