Arjun Vishwanth

The plaintiff and defendant, former business partners, each brought motions for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction for a property on Lushes Avenue.

The plaintiff sought specific performance and damages, alleging the defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and acted in bad faith.

The defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action, damages for unjust enrichment, vacant possession, and an order for sale, alleging the plaintiff anticipatorily repudiated the contract by lacking funds to close.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding numerous factual and legal issues in dispute, including which party was responsible for the failed transaction, the plaintiff's ability to close, anticipatory breach, and the property's uniqueness.

The court determined that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, citing deficiencies in the motion record and serious credibility issues requiring viva voce evidence.

The plaintiff and defendant, former business partners, each brought motions for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction for a property on Lushes Avenue.

The plaintiff sought specific performance and damages, alleging the defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and acted in bad faith.

The defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action, damages for unjust enrichment, vacant possession, and an order for sale, alleging the plaintiff anticipatorily repudiated the contract by lacking funds to close.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding numerous factual and legal issues in dispute, including which party was responsible for the failed transaction, the plaintiff's ability to close, anticipatory breach, and the property's uniqueness.

The court determined that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, citing deficiencies in the motion record and serious credibility issues requiring viva voce evidence.

The plaintiff, Ampscon Inc., moved to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing its action for delay under Rules 48.14(10) and 37.14.

The defendant, Melloul-Blamey Construction Inc., opposed, arguing insufficient explanation for delay, lack of promptness, and presumed prejudice.

The court, applying principles from Carioca and Fuller, emphasized that cases should be decided on their merits and that a "reasonable" standard applies to counsel's conduct.

It found the five-year delay, with periods of dormancy accepted by both parties, was not inherently prejudicial.

The plaintiff's financial difficulties and a solicitor's lien were deemed reasonable explanations for recent delays.

The court dismissed the defendant's claims of prejudice, noting that any lack of evidence from the plaintiff would benefit the defendant.

The Registrar's Order was set aside, and the motion was granted.

The appellant was charged with speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision that resulted in a fatality.

At the first appearance, the justice of the peace noticed that the information contained a defective date (November 18, 2017 instead of November 18, 2016) and quashed the information of his own motion without considering amendment procedures or granting the Crown an opportunity to make submissions.

The Crown sought certiorari, and the Superior Court judge found the justice of the peace had committed jurisdictional error.

The appellant appealed, arguing the circumstances were analogous to London v. Young and that sections 34 and 36 of the Provincial Offences Act did not apply at a first appearance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the justice of the peace erred in law by quashing the information without following the statutory amendment and quashing procedures, and by failing to afford the Crown procedural fairness.