Amanda S. Gibson

The appellant, Elahe Vahed, appealed a summary judgment decision that found her in breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a condominium unit.

The motion judge had ordered the return of deposits to the buyer (Mohmmad Danesh), damages payable by Vahed, and dismissed Vahed's counterclaims against Danesh, her lawyer (Michael Bury), and the realtor (Remax Crossroads Realty Inc.).

Vahed argued that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the authenticity of a letter extending the closing date and whether her lawyer followed instructions.

She also sought to introduce fresh evidence and appealed the costs award in favour of Re/Max.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment dismissing her claim for professional negligence and breach of contract against real estate agents on the basis that the action was statute barred under section 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The underlying dispute arose from the sale of a property in 2008-2009, with the appellant alleging that the real estate agents improperly induced her to sign a counter-offer and presented it against her instructions.

The appellant commenced the action in 2015, claiming she only discovered her claim during an examination for discovery in March 2015.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant should have known of her claim well before commencing the action, particularly after obtaining a real estate licence and taking real estate courses that would have put her on notice to make further inquiries.

The Court of Appeal remitted an application to the Superior Court to determine damages and costs after finding the purchaser breached an agreement of purchase and sale.

The sellers claimed damages for the difference in resale price and carrying costs, and sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found the purchaser failed to prove the sellers did not mitigate damages.

Damages were awarded for the price difference and most carrying costs, less the deposit.

Costs were awarded to the sellers on a partial indemnity scale until their offer to settle, and substantial indemnity thereafter, with a reduction for counsel's conduct during cross-examination.

The appellants wrongfully repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property in Burlington.

The vendor resold the property approximately two months after relisting it through the same agent.

The motion judge granted summary judgment ordering the appellants to pay the difference in purchase price and related expenses, finding the vendor acted reasonably in mitigating damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the resale steps were unreasonable and challenging the price differential.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision.

The appellants acknowledged they added the broker and agent as parties solely to obtain disclosure of their file and market data, providing no legitimate basis to maintain the action against them.

The plaintiff, Frederick Fischer, moved for summary judgment against the vendor and real estate agents involved in his purchase of a property previously used as a marijuana grow operation, a latent defect not disclosed to him.

He alleged fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring trial, including whether the buyer's agent knew about the grow-op, the source of information provided to the buyer, and the extent of damages suffered by the plaintiff, particularly regarding the property's marketability and mold remediation costs.

The court also granted leave for the plaintiff to amend his claim to explicitly include negligent misrepresentation.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement arising from a defamation action where the plaintiff alleged damages after being called “ridiculous” during a Small Claims Court settlement conference.

The plaintiff had sent an email offering to withdraw the claim without costs if the defendants did the same.

The defendants accepted the offer, but the plaintiff later asserted the offer had been rescinded and added a new requirement for an apology.

The court held that the original offer was clear, contained no apology requirement, and had not been withdrawn in accordance with Rule 49.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before acceptance.

The acceptance created a binding settlement agreement which the court ordered enforced.

This is a costs decision following the successful summary judgment motions of the defendants and third parties in a slip and fall action.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be reduced due to his impecuniosity.

The court rejected this argument, noting that a plaintiff suing for a substantial sum must expect to pay costs if unsuccessful.

The court fixed the costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and the costs payable by the defendant to the third parties, on a partial indemnity basis.