Alan S. Price

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted against them in a failed real estate transaction.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial regarding defences of non est factum, failure to tender (due to anticipatory breach), and the appropriateness of summary judgment despite an outstanding third-party claim.

The appeal also challenged the assessment of damages, specifically the foreseeability of bridge financing costs and mitigation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings and reasoning.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of real estate.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, leading to the plaintiffs reselling their home at a significant loss.

The defendants raised defenses of non est factum and failure to tender, and challenged the appropriateness of partial summary judgment and the calculation of damages.

The court dismissed the defendants' defenses, found partial summary judgment appropriate given the severability of the main action from the third-party claims, and assessed the plaintiffs' damages at $298,847.67.

The court ordered the immediate release of the $30,000 deposit to the plaintiffs and stayed the enforcement of the remaining judgment for six months, pending the resolution of the defendants' third-party claim.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property that had been transferred from the defendant's ex-husband to the defendant as part of a separation agreement.

The defendant moved to discharge the CPL, arguing the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, including a prior settlement and release, and the circumstances surrounding a previous motion to renew a writ of execution.

The court found the plaintiff breached the duty of full and fair disclosure under Rule 39.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and discharged the CPL, emphasizing the exceptional duty on parties seeking ex parte relief.

This case involved a real estate brokerage's claim for a $36,000 commission from property purchasers.

The court found that the brokerage, York National Realty Inc., had repudiated its Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) with the purchasers by presenting contradictory Confirmation of Cooperation and Representation (CCR) forms that stated it was only providing customer service to the buyers while representing the seller.

Furthermore, the brokerage breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material facts, including the fact that the buyers would be responsible for the commission and the familial relationship between the brokerage owner and the seller, prior to the final Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action for commission and awarded costs to the defendants.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Liliana Siggillino's action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action concerned a dispute over the 2008 transfer of a family farm, where Liliana alleged misrepresentation regarding its value.

The central issue was when Liliana discovered her claim, specifically when she first read a 2008 property valuation report.

The court found Liliana's evidence regarding the discovery date to be contradictory and not credible, preferring her earlier statements and a 2013 letter indicating she read the report in 2008.

The court also found that a reasonable person in her circumstances ought to have known of the claim by July 30, 2008, through reasonable diligence.

Consequently, Liliana's action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The Applicant, having successfully obtained judgment for damages in a prior application, sought partial indemnity costs.

The Respondent challenged the quantum of legal fees, arguing they were excessive and should be reduced by 25%.

The court, applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle of proportionality, found the Applicant's claimed time reasonable.

The Respondent's conduct, including delays in delivering records and cross-examinations, was noted as unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request for a reduction and awarded the Applicant the full amount of claimed partial indemnity costs.

The Applicant, a restaurant operator, sought damages for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and unpaid interim rent from the Respondent, who intended to purchase the Applicant's assets and lease assignment.

The Respondent failed to complete the purchase, arguing the APS was invalid due to a missed closing date and lack of landlord consent.

The court rectified the closing date, found the Respondent waived strict compliance with deadlines, agreed to pay interim rent, and that the Applicant delivered the landlord's consent.

The Respondent's failure to complete the APS constituted repudiation.

Judgment was awarded to the Applicant for damages and rent.

The court determined costs for several motions following a previous endorsement.

Filomena Siggillino was ordered to pay costs for an abandoned motion.

Filomena, Teresa Scalamogna, and Lilianna Siggillino were ordered to pay costs for a successful Vesting Order motion brought by 2377544 Ontario Inc. and an unsuccessful Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) motion brought by Filomena.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity, and adjusted the claimed amounts based on the complexity of the proceedings, the results achieved, and the clarity of the costs submissions.

This endorsement addresses two motions within related legal proceedings concerning a "family feud" over a property.

Robert Di Toro, on behalf of 2377544 Ontario Inc., sought a vesting order to facilitate the sale of a property, with $1,500,000.00 to be paid into court as previously ordered by Master Short.

Filomena Siggillino, the mother of the other parties, brought a cross-motion for leave to register her own Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the property, alleging fraudulent misuse of a Power of Attorney by her daughters, Teresa Scalamogna and Lilianna Siggillino.

The court dismissed Filomena's cross-motion for a CPL, finding no tenable cause of action against Robert/2377544 Ontario Inc. and that damages would be an appropriate remedy.

The court also noted the disingenuous position of Teresa and Lilianna in supporting their mother's motion, which undermined their own prior claims, constituting an abuse of process.

Consequently, the court granted the vesting order sought by 2377544 Ontario Inc., allowing the property sale to proceed with the specified funds paid into court.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to pay the full increased cost of building a retaining wall.

The motion judge had requested further affidavits from engineers regarding the cost differential, which was about 25 percent.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred by not permitting cross-examination on the respondents' expert's second report and by effectively turning the motion into one for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellants did not seek to cross-examine or make further oral submissions, and the motion judge's finding that the cost increases were due to poor soil conditions was entitled to deference.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce security granted by the defendant over her investment account for a loan advanced to a corporation operated by her brother.

The defendant argued she should not be liable because the plaintiff failed to ensure she received independent legal advice before pledging the security.

The court found the documentary record established the security was knowingly provided for the loan and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Distinguishing authorities involving vulnerable guarantors and unconscionable transactions, the court held no duty arose to ensure independent legal advice in the circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted and the investment account ordered liquidated to satisfy the debt.

Following an earlier endorsement on the merits, the court determined the issue of costs between the commercial landlord applicant and tenant respondent.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to a lease provision.

The court accepted that the contractual clause justified substantial indemnity costs but reduced the claimed amount because the respondent achieved some limited success on the application and the hours claimed by counsel and a law clerk were considered high.

The court awarded a reduced lump-sum costs amount inclusive of certain disputed disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought directions after the defendant paid an outstanding costs order but failed to comply with the remaining terms of a previous order requiring him to produce financial documents and attend for cross-examination regarding his claim of impecuniosity.

The defendant argued that paying the costs relieved him of the other obligations.

The court held that the defendant could not selectively comply with the order to avoid cross-examination, as his financial status was relevant to the broader proceeding.

The court ordered the defendant to produce the documents and attend for cross-examination, failing which the plaintiffs could return their motion to strike his Statement of Defence.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to recover outstanding debts arising from credit facilities and credit card obligations guaranteed by several corporate and personal guarantors.

The defendants argued that the reasonableness of the bank’s legal fees, the discharge of a third mortgage security, and other accounting issues created genuine issues requiring trial.

The court held that the only unresolved issue concerned the reasonableness of legal fees, which would be determined through an assessment under the Solicitors Act.

Excluding those disputed legal fees, the court found no genuine issue requiring trial regarding the remaining indebtedness and rejected the defence that discharge of a mortgage extinguished the underlying debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the minimum outstanding principal, the counterclaim was dismissed, and the remaining legal fees were ordered to be determined by assessment.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant’s statement of defence under Rule 57.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to pay previously ordered motion costs.

The responding party argued he was impecunious and unable to satisfy the costs award.

The court held that striking a defence is an extreme remedy and generally a last resort, particularly where a party has not yet been given a final opportunity to comply.

The court ordered extensive financial disclosure to test the claim of impecuniosity and granted the defendant a final 90‑day opportunity to pay outstanding costs.

The defence would be struck if the ordered costs were not paid by the specified deadline.