Timothy Duggan

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim, arguing it duplicated an existing application the defendants had filed at the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding an alleged bad faith eviction.

The court found that the counterclaim was an abuse of process as it arose from the same factual matrix and sought the same relief as the tribunal application.

The counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff City of Saskatoon was defrauded of over $1 million when it was tricked into depositing a payment meant for a contractor into a fraudulent bank account.

The funds were dispersed by the account operator to various individuals.

The City traced and froze the funds.

On a motion to determine entitlement to the remaining frozen funds, the respondents claimed to be innocent victims who paid valuable consideration.

The court found the respondents failed to provide evidence that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice or that they had innocently changed their position.

The court ordered the remaining funds returned to the City.

The applicant unit owners brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation regarding a water leak originating from their bathroom and alleging oppressive conduct.

The court found that the leak originated from an overflow pipe within the boundaries of the applicants' unit, making it their responsibility to repair, not the corporation's.

The court also dismissed the oppression claims, finding that the corporation's actions in investigating the leak, enforcing rules, and managing expenses were reasonable and did not constitute coercive or unfairly prejudicial conduct.

The defendants in a defamation action brought a motion to dismiss the proceeding under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, and a motion to strike portions of the statement of claim.

The defamation claim arose from anonymous letters distributed to condominium residents alleging corruption by the plaintiffs, who were current or former board members.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the defendants could not rely on the provision while denying they made the statements, and that in any event, condominium board politics do not constitute a matter of public interest.

The court granted the motion to strike in part, removing paragraphs from the statement of claim that were irrelevant and vexatious.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal from an arbitrator's ruling, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting that the applicant's appeal was largely without merit, caused unnecessary delay, and that the respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $18,008.88.