Avinaash Laljie

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were provided by any party, the court made no order as to costs.

The plaintiff, a corporate builder, brought a motion for summary judgment against one of the purchasers for damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought damages based on the difference between the agreed purchase price and an appraised value, rather than the typical resale price.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's affidavit evidence was insufficient and raised too many unanswered questions regarding the subsequent non-arm's length sale of the property and the plaintiff's mitigation efforts.

The court emphasized the moving party's obligation to 'put their best foot forward' and provide clear evidence for damage calculation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged the failure to close was due to a lack of financing, while the defendants claimed it was due to deficiencies identified during the pre-delivery inspection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence on the reason for the breach of contract, combined with the prohibition on cross-examinations under Rule 76, created a genuine issue requiring a trial.