Anna Wong

The appellants failed to complete the sale of their home in 2016.

The respondent was awarded $715,000 in damages in lieu of specific performance at trial.

On appeal, the self-represented appellant requested an adjournment, which the court denied due to the lengthy history of the litigation and lack of evidence supporting the request.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and fact-finding.

The court also rejected the argument that the appellant wife was not a proper party, noting she signed the Agreement of Purchase and Sale as a consenting spouse under the Family Law Act.

The Professional Conduct Committee alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to meet continuing professional development requirements, submitting a false declaration, and failing to comply with professional standards in four compilation engagements.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee proceeded in his absence, qualified the investigator as an expert witness, and found all allegations proven.

The Committee revoked the Member's membership, imposed a $15,000 fine, and ordered $16,500 in costs, citing his prior disciplinary history and the seriousness of making false statements to the regulator.

The Member faced an allegation of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with a CPA Ontario investigation into a complaint by her former employer.

The Member admitted the facts but argued she could not substantively respond to the investigation because doing so might prejudice her defence in ongoing civil litigation with the complainant.

The Discipline Committee found that the duty to cooperate is a substantive obligation that cannot be deferred pending civil litigation.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and ordered a $5,000 fine, $3,400 in costs, and required her to provide a substantive response within 30 days, failing which her membership would be suspended and ultimately revoked.

The court considered a motion for an interlocutory proprietary injunction and leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over three development properties.

The Applicants advanced $16 million to the Respondents for property purchases, claiming a common intention that the properties would stand as security.

The Respondents argued the advances were loans or investments without property interests.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding an equitable mortgage and unjust enrichment, granted injunctions over two properties, and a limited injunction over the third to allow refinancing.

The court also found that, if necessary, a CPL would be granted.

The applicant, a licensed immigration consultant, brought a motion to stay a 6-month licence suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council pending judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion on the ground of prematurity.

Applying the general rule that judicial review should not be brought until all available and adequate administrative recourses are pursued, the Court found the applicant had failed to seek relief from the interim suspension by presenting a motion to the Discipline Committee as permitted by the order.

Without exhausting this remedy, the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious issue for trial under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision refusing to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on their property.

The plaintiff had commenced an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's subsequent purchase of a nearby property negated the uniqueness of their property.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error of law in her assessment of uniqueness or her reliance on an affidavit from the plaintiff's ex-husband explaining the purpose of the second property.

The court concluded there remained a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the CPL.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for specific performance or damages after an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce what she claimed was a binding settlement agreement arising from correspondence between counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' letter did not contain a clear, unambiguous offer to settle the matter by selling the property at the original purchase price, but rather only offered a settlement payment in the alternative.

The plaintiff brought a claim for unjust enrichment against the defendant, seeking $300,000 for renovations he allegedly performed on her properties during a purported 34-year cohabitation.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was contradictory, noting he had previously testified under oath at his criminal trial for harassing the defendant that their relationship was casual and he was married to someone else.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant provided overwhelming evidence that she solely owned and financed the properties, and the plaintiff was compensated for minor work with room and board.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring it to pay a rent differential to a former tenant who vacated due to a bedbug infestation.

The Board found that the landlord's failure to address the infestation in the common hallway substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment and induced him to move out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'induced' to include a failure to act was reasonable and consistent with the tenant protection objectives of the Residential Tenancies Act.