Tung-Chieh Wu

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the Defendant, Styrok Inc., against the Plaintiff, Liya Fu.

The Defendant sought elevated costs of $15,000 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The Plaintiff argued for each party to bear their own costs or a reduced partial indemnity amount.

The court rejected the Plaintiff's arguments, finding the Defendant was wholly successful and entitled to costs.

It denied elevated costs, stating the Plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, and awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $11,335.00, adjusting the Defendant's claimed amount to reflect appropriate partial indemnity rates.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's breach of contract claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended the action was not statute-barred due to a continuing breach or anticipatory breach.

The court found no continuing or anticipatory breach, concluding that the plaintiff had discovered her claim by July 8, 2018, at the latest.

As the action was commenced on August 11, 2021, it was out of time.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and both the plaintiff's action and the defendant's counterclaim were dismissed.

The defendant Bang Chen moved to set aside a default judgment, prohibit the sale of two mortgaged properties (5 Upperview Place and 51 Dempster Street), set aside writs of possession, and stay the action.

The court dismissed the motion to prohibit the sale of 5 Upperview Place, finding the power of sale properly exercised despite claims of improper renewal, deficient redemption period, improper service, and incorrect amounts.

However, the court found the three-month interest penalty improper.

While the default judgment was not set aside due to lack of a defence on the merits, its enforcement was stayed for 51 Dempster Street, and possession of that property was restored to the defendants, pending an accounting of the amounts owed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision dismissing his appeal of an assault conviction.

The appellant had been represented at trial by a law student from a legal aid clinic and argued on appeal that he received ineffective legal representation because his counsel failed to raise Charter issues regarding a strip search conducted after his arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge's determination regarding the reasonableness of the legal representation was a case-specific determination that did not extend beyond the four corners of the case and was not clearly wrong.

The other issues raised by the appellant also failed to meet the test for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault and the resulting conditional discharge.

He argued that he received ineffective representation from a law student agent at Downtown Legal Services, and that the trial judge erred in various evidentiary and substantive rulings, including the application of the de minimis doctrine.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant received effective representation, the trial was fair, and the sentence was fit given the domestic context of the assault.