The city has been ordered to pay $57,000 in court costs for a failed attempt to get a judge to dismiss a lawsuit from a company that was unable to build a factory and head office in the northwest business park.
Superior Court Justice R.A. Lococo ordered the city to pay that amount after it failed to win a motion it filed last year to have a judge dismiss a $10-million suit brought by Kingspan Insulated Panels Ltd.
The company has alleged in its claim that the city was in breach of contract and exercised negligent misrepresentation in the sale of a parcel of land on Fen Ridge Court near Oak Park Road land to the company in 2007.
According to a written decision from Lococo, the company offered to settle in Nov. 20, 2009, and the offer was open until Dec. 4, 2009.
Instead, the city brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Kingspan's action. That motion was later denied.
Kingspan moved to file for costs, seeking $75,019, including disbursements and GST/HST. The company's lawyers argued that "it should have been obvious to the city that it stood virtually no chance of success on the motion."
The city's lawyers agreed that Brantford should have to pay since its motion was denied. They argued, however, that a "fair and reasonable" amount would be in the range of $40,000, and that the quoted rates for Kingspan's legal defence against the city's motion were too high for the circumstance.
Lococo disagreed with Kingspan. He said that it is not clear that the city stood no chance of winning its motion. He considered the $57,000 an equitable compromise.
It isn't clear yet that city will have to pay the costs, said city solicitor Larry Tansley. He pointed out that the city is seeking leave to appeal the motion it lost.
"If the city were to win the appeal, the responsibility would be turned around, and it would not have to pay," he said.
Brantford's failed motion, its attempt to appeal, and the order for costs represent the latest skirmish in the legal conflict between the city and Kingspan that continues to collect legal bills.
The company bought a parcel in the municipally owned business park four years ago, but was frustrated in its development. Throughout 2008 and 2009, Haudenosaunee activists repeatedly blockaded the site, stopping construction workers while city police worked to maintain public safety.
Kingspan later launched a suit against the city. In its statement of claim, the company alleged that the city did not warn of the potential for a land claims dispute when it was selling the land.
The city refuted the allegations in a statement of defence.
The allegations in the statement of claim and the statement of defence have not been proved in court.
mamarion@theexpositor.com