Yuce Baykara

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his defamation action for delay.

The plaintiff attributed the delay to prioritizing criminal proceedings (where he was ultimately acquitted), his father's illness, and other litigation.

The court applied a contextual approach, balancing the preference for merits-based decisions with the promotion of timely resolution and the importance of litigation finality.

While the plaintiff's explanation for delay and missing the deadline was deemed insufficient, the court found no significant prejudice to the defendant, noting the case's reliance on documents and the defendant's own inaction.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and a new timetable was ordered.

Costs of $5,000 were fixed against the plaintiff, payable to the defendant in the cause.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's dismissal of his action seeking a declaration of adverse possession over part of the respondents' property.

The appellant contended that the motion judge failed to consider evidence of his predecessor in title's mistaken understanding regarding the boundary location.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the predecessors had no intention to use the land to the exclusion of its true owner, based on the totality of evidence including the R-Plan filed in support of conversion to the Land Titles Act regime.

The court also rejected the appellant's assertion regarding an old fence creating a boundary, finding it unsupported by evidence.

The applicants sought an order for the assessment of legal bills rendered by the respondent law firm under the Solicitors Act, arguing that no final bill was delivered or, alternatively, that special circumstances existed.

The court found that all bills delivered prior to and including the last bill in October 2013 were interim bills, meaning no final bill was ever issued, thus permitting an assessment as of right.

The court further determined that even if a limitation period applied, numerous "special circumstances" existed, including the delivery of 39 bills over an eight-year retainer, involvement of 11 lawyers, billing for file reviews, lack of transparency regarding hourly rates, and internal firm pressure to bill for unnecessary work, which would justify an assessment.

The court rejected the respondent's preliminary objections regarding the applicant's affidavit and claims of bad faith based on animosity between counsel.