Andrew Francis

The vendor plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the purchaser defendant for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for $1,755,000, later amended to $1,700,000, but was unable to obtain financing by the closing date.

The court found the purchaser committed an anticipatory breach by communicating inability to close, the vendor accepted the repudiation, and the agreement was terminated.

The vendor appropriately mitigated damages by reselling the property for $1,650,290.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the vendor for damages of $78,906.49, with the purchaser's $70,000 deposit applied against that amount.

The plaintiff brought an action against her former common-law partner for repayment of loans totalling $209,700 advanced over the course of a ten-year relationship, compensation under a cohabitation agreement, damages for loss of income incurred while providing attendant care after the defendant's motorcycle accident, and punitive/mental distress damages.

The defendant's defence was struck and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial.

The court found a pattern of intimate partner coercive control and financial exploitation, holding the claims were not statute-barred as the plaintiff reasonably relied on the defendant's repeated promises of repayment until he blocked all communications in February 2014.

The court awarded $118,700 for unpaid loans, $19,607.94 in interest, $19,000 under the cohabitation agreement, $40,000 for loss of income while caregiving, and $15,000 in mental distress damages, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The plaintiff sought costs of $20,000 on a substantial indemnity basis against the defendant Lynch following a successful motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The defendant argued costs should be in the cause or fixed at $5,000.

The court found the plaintiff was successful and the motion should have been resolved on consent, but reduced the requested amount for proportionality, fixing costs at $14,000 payable by the defendant Lynch.

This motion arose from a partnership dispute concerning the joint purchase of a pre-build home.

The plaintiff sought to either extend a two-year undertaking preventing the defendant, who held title, from selling or encumbering the property, or, in the alternative, an order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The court denied the request to vary the consent order extending the undertaking, finding no mutual intent for an extension.

However, the court granted the CPL, determining that the plaintiff had established a triable issue regarding their interest in the land, and that a CPL was warranted despite the availability of a damages claim, given the property was the subject matter of the claim and to prevent potential dissipation of assets.

This decision addresses an application for oppression remedies under the Canada Business Corporations Act, brought by majority shareholders against minority shareholders, alleging fraud and prejudicial conduct related to a property acquisition.

The applicants sought declarations of wrongdoing, removal of directors, and cancellation of shares.

The court found material facts in dispute, including the applicants' knowledge of a "finder's fee" or "flip" profit, and serious allegations of threats.

Given the complexity, credibility issues, and the significant value of the shares at stake, the court converted the application into an action for a full trial with viva voce evidence, reserving costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiff, Boris Kisliuk, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant Maytal Algai for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and against Signature Realty Inc. for the release of a $75,000 deposit held in trust.

The court found Ms. Algai liable for breach of contract, as she had been noted in default.

The plaintiff was awarded $218,138.93 in damages, which included loss of bargain and various carrying costs incurred due to the failed transaction.

The court also ordered the Realtor to release the $75,000 deposit to the plaintiff, to be credited against the judgment, and awarded costs and interest.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in a mortgage enforcement action.

The defendants' counsel had served a Notice of Intent to Defend and requested a brief indulgence due to the defendants' cognitive disabilities, but the plaintiffs' counsel obtained default judgment without replying or providing notice.

The court found the plaintiffs' counsel's actions to be unprofessional and set aside the default judgment as of right.

Alternatively, the court found the defendants had an arguable defence on the merits, alleging unconscionability, undue influence, and deficient independent legal advice regarding the mortgage.

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis.