V. William Andreou

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing an action as statute-barred, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that while the defendants were entirely successful in establishing that the plaintiffs had missed the limitation period, success alone does not justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not acted improperly or unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by advancing their claim and defending the summary judgment motion.

Accordingly, the defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $34,610.66 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable forthwith.

The defendants, a law firm and its partners, moved for summary judgment dismissing a solicitors’ negligence and breach of fiduciary duty action brought by a corporate client and its shareholder arising from a loan transaction.

The court considered whether the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The evidentiary record demonstrated that the shareholder had knowledge of the loan negotiations, participated in communications with the lender and counsel, and arranged appraisal materials in support of the financing well before the action was commenced.

As a result, the plaintiffs discovered the material facts underlying the claim more than two years before issuing the statement of claim.

The action was therefore statute‑barred and there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.