Sean D. McGarry

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed $10,589.19 on a partial indemnity basis and $15,038.57 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued for an award of $4,000.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs and awarded the plaintiff $7,250 all inclusive, payable forthwith.

The defendant, Intact Insurance, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's (Nasr Hospitality Services Inc.) claim for property loss was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff's premises were flooded on January 31, 2013, and Intact formally denied the claim on July 22, 2013.

The action was commenced on April 22, 2015.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until July 2013, when Intact clearly repudiated its obligation, making the plaintiff's action timely.

The plaintiff, EcoConcepts Management Services Inc., and the third parties (former board members) each moved for summary judgment against Peel Condominium Corporation No. 260.

The dispute arose from the termination of EcoConcepts' management contract, which included a highly contentious termination clause requiring payment for the remainder of a five-year term.

Allegations of fabricated documents, improper board authorization, and bad faith were central to the defendant's counterclaim and third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact, particularly concerning credibility and the circumstances surrounding the 2013 Agreement's authorization, required a full trial for a fair and just determination.

In a proposed class action brought by a former RCMP officer alleging systemic sexual harassment and discrimination against female RCMP members, the defendant Crown moved under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Crown argued that systemic negligence claims against the RCMP amounted to impermissible direct liability contrary to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, that no contractual employment relationship existed, and that the claim was statute‑barred.

The court held that the breach of contract claim was untenable because the employment relationship of RCMP members is statutory rather than contractual and struck that portion of the claim.

However, the court found it was not plain and obvious that the systemic negligence claim failed, holding that the pleadings could support vicarious liability of the Crown for collective misconduct of Crown servants.

The limitation issue could not be resolved on a pleadings motion.