Sergiy Timokhov

The defendants brought a motion for directions after adjourning the examination for discovery of the plaintiff, Valentina Medvedeva.

The day before the scheduled examination, the plaintiffs served a lengthy affidavit intended to serve as Valentina's evidence in chief.

The defendants objected, arguing this would allow the plaintiffs to control the narrative and avoid a proper oral discovery.

The court agreed with the defendants, finding that under Rule 31.02, the examining party controls the form of discovery, and oral examinations are the standard.

The court ordered that Valentina submit to a standard oral examination for discovery without the use of the affidavit.

The appellants advanced $600,000 to the respondents during negotiations to purchase a 25 per cent interest in the respondents' business.

When the transaction failed, the appellants sued to recover the funds, arguing they were a refundable deposit or loan, while the respondents claimed they were a non-refundable down payment.

The trial judge dismissed the action in very brief reasons.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge mischaracterized the central issue and failed to provide sufficient reasons to permit meaningful appellate review.

Following the dismissal of an appeal from the Small Claims Court, the successful respondent sought costs of $6,592.76 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant argued the amount was excessive and suggested $2,000.00.

Applying the principle of proportionality given the modest amount in dispute (less than $9,000.00), the court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $3,000.00 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment declaring that a May 2014 agreement between the parties was a binding contract and ordering its rectification to remove a clause requiring a future formal agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the parties' conduct demonstrated an intention to be bound and that the formal agreement clause was included by mutual mistake.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for water damage to her neighbour's property caused by a detached downspout.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law.

The court noted that Small Claims Court reasons must be considered in light of the court's informal nature and statutory mandate for efficiency.

The defendant sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's Small Claims Court appeal.

The defendant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,203.60, while the plaintiff argued costs should be on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the principle that full indemnity costs are only awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances.

Finding no such circumstances, the court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $3,000, to be set off against the judgment owing to the plaintiff.