Wayne Laski

Following a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action alleging forgery and fraud in relation to a vehicle lease, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiffs had advanced serious but unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The court held that such allegations justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

While accepting that the defence costs outlines reflected some minor over-lawyering and partial duplication of effort, the court concluded that the defendants were nonetheless entitled to significant costs.

The amounts claimed were modestly reduced and substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a fraud action arising from an automobile lease transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged that signatures on credit applications associated with the lease were forged and sought substantial damages for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court held that the expert handwriting report relied upon by the plaintiffs was inadmissible because it was appended to another affidavit and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

Even if forgery were assumed, the plaintiffs failed to establish damages and the claim was also found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.