Trevor James Buckley

The plaintiff, an electrical contractor, sued the defendants for breach of a time and materials contract for electrical services provided to a grocery store.

The central issues included the interpretation of the contract, the identification of the proper contracting parties given that "Dutchies Fresh Food Market" was a non-existent entity, the amount of unpaid invoices, and a claim for punitive damages.

The court found the individual defendant personally liable, jointly with specific corporate entities, for contracting on behalf of a non-existent corporation.

The court awarded the full amount of the unpaid invoices, accepting the plaintiff's evidence regarding time and materials, including overtime, breaks, and material costs.

However, the claim for punitive damages was denied, as the defendants' conduct, while uncooperative, did not meet the high threshold of malicious, oppressive, or high-handed behavior required for such an award.

The plaintiff successfully moved for an order to compel production of records and permit questioning from a non-party assessment company and its retained doctor, overcoming a claim of litigation privilege.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that successful motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs in the amount of $16,877.92, finding the motion involved important and complex issues, and that the time spent by the plaintiff's counsel was reasonable and not excessive, despite the defendants' arguments regarding proportionality and necessity of certain steps.

The plaintiff sought an order to compel production of records from a non-party assessment company, HVE Healthcare Assessments, and its retained expert, Dr. Joel Finkelstein, and to permit questioning of HVE.

The plaintiff argued that litigation privilege should yield to the principle of fairness, citing a reasonable suspicion that HVE improperly influenced Dr. Finkelstein's report, particularly concerning the summarization of surveillance evidence and the delayed disclosure of a conflicting expert report.

The court found a factual foundation for this suspicion, noting inconsistencies and the defendants' refusal to answer questions regarding HVE's involvement.

The court ordered the defendants to produce all relevant records from HVE and Dr. Finkelstein, excluding solicitor-client privileged communications, as these were deemed foundational documents not protected by litigation privilege under the circumstances.

The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The appellant sued for damages relating to property flooding and brought a motion to extend the time to set the matter down for trial beyond its fifth anniversary.

The motion judge dismissed the action for delay under Rule 48.14(7)(a), finding the appellant had not reasonably explained the delay.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge applied an overly stringent test, misapprehended evidence, and failed to consider the pending summary judgment motion and consent of other defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly articulated and applied the legal test and his decision was amply grounded in the record.

Two consolidated actions were brought by food industry companies and related parties against their commercial insurer following losses arising from an Indian meal moth infestation.

The first action sought indemnification for lost rental income and a bonus allegedly owed to the principal owner.

The second action sought indemnification for alleged theft of equipment and assets by a court-appointed receiver, resulting in business interruption losses.

The trial judge dismissed the first action entirely, finding the losses were indirect and not covered by the policy.

In the second action, the trial judge dismissed the property claim as time-barred but allowed the business interruption claim to proceed in part by applying a rolling limitation period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the first action and reversed the trial judge's application of a rolling limitation period to the business interruption claim, finding that the insurer's obligation to indemnify was not a recurring contractual obligation.

Both actions were dismissed in their entirety.

The appellants commenced a motor vehicle accident action in December 2010 following a collision in December 2008.

The action was administratively dismissed as abandoned in August 2011 pursuant to rule 48.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants moved to set aside the dismissal in February 2014, more than two years after the dismissal order.

A master granted the motion to set aside, but the Superior Court judge allowed the respondents' appeal and reinstated the dismissal.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the master erred in considering the repeal of rule 48.15 as part of the contextual analysis, erred in assigning fault to the respondents for not filing a defence, erred in finding that the appellants always intended to prosecute the action without evidence to support this finding, and critically erred in failing to consider the finality principle in assessing prejudice to the respondents.