Sam De Caprio

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for damages due to abandoning a 10-year commercial lease.

The appeal focused on two grounds: whether Kevin O’Neill was personally liable as a tenant and whether outdoor storage was a permitted use of the premises, justifying abandonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the lease was unambiguous regarding Kevin O'Neill's personal liability and that the appellants failed to demonstrate an implied term for outdoor storage or a mutual mistake regarding permitted uses.

Following the dismissal of Multiplex's motions for a sealing order and pleading amendments, and the granting of its motion to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10, the court determined the costs of the motions.

The court awarded PGH $11,000 in partial indemnity costs for the dismissed motions, finding Multiplex's conduct was not reprehensible or wholly devoid of merit to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court deferred the costs of the successful Rule 31.10 motion, ruling that the non-party's costs would be determined if he seeks reimbursement, and PGH's liability for Multiplex's costs would be determined in the cause of the underlying fraud allegations.

Multiplex Construction Canada Limited brought motions for a sealing order concerning fraud allegations made against it and its officers, and alternatively, to strike references to its officers from the respondent's amended pleading.

Multiplex also sought a Rule 31.10 examination for discovery of a non-party, George Colk.

The court denied the sealing order, finding that the commercial and reputational interests cited did not meet the public interest requirement of the necessity test.

The motion to strike parts of the pleading was also denied, as it improperly attacked the evidentiary basis rather than the pleading's sufficiency.

The Rule 31.10 examination of Mr. Colk was granted, with specific terms for its conduct, but his request for upfront costs was denied, to be determined post-examination.