Scott W. Beattie

The moving party, a lawyer who formerly represented the applicant in a family law proceeding, brought a motion for summary judgment to strike the co-respondents' amended answers against him.

The co-respondents had previously brought a civil action against the lawyer regarding the non-disbursement of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property, which was dismissed on the basis that the lawyer owed them no duty of care.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the claims in the amended answers were identical to those dismissed in the civil action and were therefore barred by the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from Hamilton to Toronto pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

Noting that a summary judgment motion was already scheduled to be heard in Hamilton on consent, the court found the transfer motion premature.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renew it following the determination of the pending summary judgment motion.

Following a judgment declaring the respondent in breach of an agreement of purchase and sale and ordering the return of a $40,000 deposit, the successful applicants sought substantial indemnity costs based on a pre-litigation demand letter.

The court found the letter did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer to settle because it was essentially a demand letter with a one-day deadline.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $14,000 after considering the principles of indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and the complexity of the proceedings.