Amanda Deveaux

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent a shortfall of $58,067.48 following the sale of a property under power of sale.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in determining the sale price by 'rectifying' a Land Transfer Tax statement contrary to the Land Titles Act and reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not rectify the document but simply weighed the evidence to determine the actual consideration received, and that s. 78(4) of the Land Titles Act did not apply.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Bemco Financial Services Ltd., for a deficiency on a mortgage loan after a power of sale.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the sale price, accounting for rents, management fees, property taxes, or real estate commissions.

The court disallowed a three-month interest penalty as a prohibited penalty under the Interest Act, but otherwise accepted the plaintiff’s accounting and entitlement to the deficiency.

The Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment due to a mortgage default by the Defendants.

The motion was previously adjourned on consent with terms for the Defendants to refinance, but they failed to comply.

The court applied the Hryniak v. Mauldin test for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the mortgage principal, interest, and various fees, including liquidated damages, which were found not to violate s. 8(1) of the Interest Act.

An order for possession of the property and leave to issue a writ of possession were granted.

The court declined to award additional costs to the Plaintiffs, noting that the liquidated damages clause already compensated them for the costs of bringing the motion.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $6,400, while the appellant argued for no costs.

The court found no justification to depart from the usual rule of partial indemnity costs and fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $3,500 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff sued for unpaid costs and a management fee related to a home renovation project.

The Master found a cost-plus contract existed but denied the management fee, awarding the plaintiff $31,556.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 54.09 opposing the confirmation of the Master's report.

The Superior Court found the Master made a palpable and overriding error in concluding a contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms.

The court set aside the Master's report and awarded the plaintiff $106,060.19 on a quantum meruit basis for services rendered.

The appellant, a lawyer, retained the respondent law firm for a real estate purchase.

Due to a software error, the respondent failed to collect the Municipal Land Transfer Tax from the appellant before closing, but the tax was automatically withdrawn from the respondent's trust account.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court and won.

On appeal, the appellant argued the action was a nullity because the respondent failed to render an account under s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act before suing for a 'disbursement'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an independent tax obligation is not a disbursement for business done by a solicitor as such under the Act.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought an action regarding the proceeds from the sale of a property jointly developed by the deceased and the defendant, her former common-law partner.

The defendant relied on a cohabitation agreement that provided property division would be determined solely by legal ownership.

The plaintiff relied on a subsequent oral property development agreement, confirmed in writing by the defendant, that provided for the return of investments and equal sharing of profits.

The court found that neither party understood the cohabitation agreement to apply to their property development activities and set it aside in part under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3,145,682.88 based on the property development agreement.