Shana Dale

Two subcontractors sued a prime contractor for breach of oral contracts relating to a municipal winter road maintenance contract.

The plaintiffs alleged their arrangements to supply trucks and operators were for the same five‑season duration as the contractor’s agreement with the municipality, while the defendant argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court held that the parties’ conduct, including deposits corresponding to the five‑year municipal contract and payment structures flowing from that contract, objectively demonstrated fixed‑term agreements.

The defendant’s termination after one season constituted breach of contract.

Damages representing lost profits for the remaining four seasons, subject to mitigation, were awarded.

Two plaintiffs brought motions for summary judgment in related actions alleging breach of oral contracts for the provision of equipment and personnel for municipal snow removal services.

The plaintiffs asserted that the agreements were fixed‑term contracts for five years that were prematurely terminated, while the defendants argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court found the evidentiary record contained significant conflicts regarding the formation and terms of the alleged oral agreements, the circumstances of termination, and issues of damages and mitigation.

Questions of credibility and potential personal liability of corporate principals also required factual assessment.

The court held that these genuine issues for trial made the actions unsuitable for summary judgment.

Following a prior order dismissing the plaintiff’s action for delay, the court addressed written submissions on costs brought by the successful moving defendants.

The defendants sought recovery of both the motion costs and the costs of the action, with some defendants requesting substantial indemnity costs.

The court confirmed that costs were payable but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the plaintiff’s delay warranted dismissal of the action, it did not justify punitive costs.

The court reduced the amounts claimed as excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced sums reflecting reasonableness and the limited complexity of the motion and proceedings.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of a civil action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, arising from a 2003 real estate transaction and alleging solicitor’s negligence and unpaid purchase funds, had remained largely inactive for over seven years.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, particularly given the plaintiff’s failure to advance the case despite prior administrative dismissal and reinstatement with directions to schedule a case conference.

Prejudice was established due to the death of a key participant and witness whose testimony was central to the disputed arrangements between the parties.

Balancing the plaintiff’s right to proceed against the defendants’ right to a fair trial, the court concluded that the defendants’ ability to defend the action had been irreparably compromised.