Sunny Rehsi

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel representatives of the Yamaha defendants to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer questions regarding their investigation of a boating accident.

The defendants had refused the questions, asserting litigation and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the dominant purpose of the defendants' investigation was in anticipation of litigation, which was reasonably anticipated shortly after the accident.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of $7,500.

The plaintiffs initiated an action against Rheem Canada Ltd. (manufacturer) and Reliance Home Comfort (installer) following a carbon monoxide incident.

Rheem brought a motion for summary judgment, asserting a lack of evidence that their water heater was defective or contributed to the incident.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the claim against Rheem, on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to adduce expert evidence to substantiate their allegations of defect or faulty training, relying instead on a self-serving affidavit.

This costs endorsement followed a successful application by the Respondent concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement, entitling the Respondent to a $100,000 holdback.

The Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $24,050.52.

The Applicants, despite being unsuccessful, sought $7,000.00 in costs, alleging unnecessary steps by the Respondent.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, awarded the Respondent $12,000.00 in fees plus disbursements.

The judge noted that the time and effort expended by both sides was disproportionate to the amount in issue and that both parties adopted a "scorched earth" attitude by raising extraneous issues.

This application concerned the interpretation of a settlement agreement regarding a $100,000 holdback amount.

The applicants (mortgagors) argued that their registration of additional security was satisfactory, and the respondent (mortgagee) could not unreasonably reject it.

The respondent contended it had sole and absolute discretion to determine satisfaction with the additional security.

The court agreed with the respondent's interpretation, finding that the discretion extended to the adequacy of the security, not just its registration.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims for misrepresentation against the respondent but found no misrepresentations by the applicants.

The holdback amount was ordered to be released to the respondent.