Assunta Mazzotta

Two brothers co-owned a family cottage and entered into a co-ownership agreement without legal advice.

When the plaintiff sought to sell his share, a dispute arose over the interpretation and validity of the buy-sell provision.

The plaintiff applied to enforce the provision or alternatively for a sale under the Partition Act, while the defendant applied for rectification of the agreement to match an earlier draft.

The Superior Court of Justice found the buy-sell provision void for uncertainty as it constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The court dismissed the defendant's claim for rectification, finding no evidence of fraud or equivalent conduct.

Ultimately, the court ordered the sale of the property pursuant to the Partition Act and directed the net proceeds to be divided equally.

Two brothers filed competing applications regarding the buy-sell provision of a cottage co-ownership agreement.

One brother sought to enforce the written agreement, while the other sought rectification based on a prior draft.

The respondent argued the matter should proceed to trial due to factual disputes.

The court determined that the matter could not be resolved on a paper record due to conflicting evidence and credibility issues regarding the drafting and execution of the agreement.

The court ordered the applications consolidated and directed them to proceed to trial.

An international sale of goods dispute involving the purchase and delivery of frozen shrimp under a CIF contract.

The seller sought payment of the purchase price after the buyer refused to accept and pay for goods that could not clear Mexican customs.

The buyer argued the seller failed to provide proper import documentation and that the seller had a duty to mitigate by reselling the goods.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's judgment for the full purchase price plus prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 8%, finding that the duty to mitigate under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to actions for the price under Article 62, and that even if it did apply, the seller had taken reasonable mitigation measures given that the buyer retained title and possession of the goods.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for default judgment in an action for goods sold and delivered.

The plaintiff sued the defendant as an individual doing business as a sole proprietorship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statement of claim was not properly served.

Because the defendant was identified as an individual, personal service was required under Rule 16.02(1)(a), but the affidavit of service indicated the document was left with an unidentified person at a place of business.

The plaintiff, Solea International BVBA, was the successful party on a motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant, Bassett & Walker International Inc., opposed the substantial indemnity claim, arguing that Solea's offer to settle for the full claim amount was not a true "offer of compromise." The court found that Solea was entitled to rely on its offers and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of its offer.

The court also determined the calculation method for substantial indemnity costs for the second hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for the unpaid purchase price of a shipment of shrimp.

The Court of Appeal had previously directed a rehearing applying the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

The defendant argued it was entitled to avoid the contract due to a defective Health Certificate and that the plaintiff's acceptance of the returned shrimp mitigated damages or constituted unjust enrichment.

The court found the defendant did not properly declare the contract avoided under the CISG and that there was no agreement excusing payment of the purchase price upon the return of the goods.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the full purchase price plus 8% interest.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment holding it liable for the full unpaid purchase price of frozen shrimp ($228,604.50 US) plus prejudgment interest.

The dispute arose from a contract between a Toronto-based company and a Belgian seafood trader for the purchase of shrimp from an Ecuadorian supplier.

The motion judge determined liability under Ontario common law without addressing whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods applied.

The Court of Appeal found that the proper law of the contract was a threshold issue that should have been addressed, as the Convention applies to international sales of goods between parties in different contracting states.

The court set aside the summary judgment and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The plaintiff, Amgad, Inc., was previously granted summary judgment on its claim for $50,895.55 USD and the defendant's $1.0 million counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs of $12,141.61 on an all-inclusive basis.

The defendant did not deliver any submissions opposing the request.

The court found the claim for costs to be overwhelmingly reasonable and awarded the requested amount.

Amgad, Inc., a diamond wholesaler, brought a summary judgment motion against Marquee Equity Inc. for $50,895.55 USD for unpaid diamonds.

Marquee admitted owing money but disputed the amount and filed a counterclaim for $1.0 million in damages for slander and intentional interference with contractual and business relations.

The court granted summary judgment to Amgad, finding the debt proven and Marquee's accounting discrepancy claims unsubstantiated.

The court dismissed Marquee's counterclaim, concluding that Amgad's statements about Marquee not paying its bills were truthful, thus providing a complete defence to defamation, and that no evidence supported claims of malice or economic harm.

Cashbloom Canada, ULC sought summary judgment against Ridgeway Design Centre Inc. and Jennifer Millar Giudice for an outstanding debt from a series of loan agreements.

The court dismissed unpleaded defences raised by the defendants regarding misleading agreements, contravention of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, and criminal interest rates due to lack of pleading and evidence.

However, a genuine issue for trial was found regarding Mrs. Giudice's defence of innocent or negligent misrepresentation concerning her personal guarantee, as an email from Cashbloom suggested no impact on personal credit.

Summary judgment was granted against Ridgeway Design Centre Inc. for $119,200.44 plus interest and costs, but refused against Mrs. Giudice, with that part of the action proceeding to trial.

The action against Carmelo Giudice was dismissed on consent.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice and moved to admit fresh evidence demonstrating that the respondent was under administration in the UK after the statement of claim and in liquidation after judgment.

The appellant argued this fresh evidence showed the respondent was not entitled to pursue the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it sufficiently clear from existing exhibits that the claim was a subrogated claim brought by the respondent's credit insurer and therefore not caught by bankruptcy proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Solea International BVBA (Solea) brought a motion for summary judgment against Bassett & Walker International Inc. (BWI) for payment of a shrimp shipment.

BWI disputed liability, claiming Solea failed to provide proper import documents (a valid health certificate) for Mexican customs.

Solea countered that BWI's own actions prevented importation and that BWI had acknowledged payment responsibility.

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

The court determined there was no evidence of a deficient health certificate from Solea or that such a deficiency caused BWI's inability to import.

Instead, evidence suggested BWI failed to pay port fees.

The motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of Solea for $228,604.50 (U.S.), plus pre and post-judgment interest.