Tom Macmillan

The defendant consented to the dismissal of its third party claim against the engineering firm before a summary judgment motion was heard.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendant argued the third party's costs should be reduced because the lawyers' time was split between two related actions and the summary judgment motion did not proceed.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the third party's methodology of equally dividing costs between the two actions was acceptable and the time spent on factum preparation was reasonable.

The court awarded the third party costs of $33,984.79 on a partial indemnity scale.

The respondent retailers brought a motion to strike an application by an animal rights organization and its founder, who sought a declaration that the use of glue traps by members of the public violates the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code and the OSPCA Act.

The court found that the applicants did not meet the threshold for public interest standing, as a declaratory application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issue to court when other avenues, such as private prosecutions or complaints to enforcement bodies, had not been pursued.

The motion to strike was granted in part.