T. Colleen Feehan

Following a successful motion for leave to amend a statement of claim under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $6,088.25, while the defendant argued the amount was excessive and proposed a lower figure.

The court applied the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than calculated through a strict mathematical approach.

It found that certain claimed amounts, including costs for drafting the amended pleading and the appearance fee, were excessive.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $3,745 plus HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to amend their statement of claim in an action alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, trespass, breach of good faith, and unjust enrichment arising from agreements permitting advertising on municipal waste bins.

The defendant opposed certain amendments on the basis that they introduced new causes of action after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The court held that the proposed amendments merely provided additional particulars and factual context for an already pleaded breach of good faith claim related to the alleged non-disclosure of municipal advertising directives.

Because the amendments did not advance a new cause of action, the limitation period concern did not bar them.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was granted.

The plaintiffs brought an action against their former lawyer alleging professional negligence in the handling of franchise litigation.

The lawyer failed to issue a notice of rescission under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 within the statutory time limits and failed to properly advance claims against the franchisor.

The original action was dismissed for delay and the statutory rescission rights expired.

The court held that the lawyer breached the standard of care and deprived the plaintiffs of their statutory rights and recoverable losses under the Act.

Judgment was granted for damages reflecting the amount that would have been recoverable through timely rescission.