Bernd Franco Orazio Hahn

The defendants by counterclaim, Robert Mammone and S.O.R.A. Real Estate & Insurance Ltd. o/a MIC Financial (the "Brokers"), moved for summary judgment to dismiss Mary Kosta-Cadas's counterclaim against them, arguing it was statute-barred by the applicable limitation period.

Mrs. Kosta-Cadas's claim was for contribution and indemnity in negligence, alleging the Brokers failed to ensure she understood and signed mortgage and renewal documents.

The central issue was the interpretation of section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, specifically whether the discoverability principle could cause the limitation period for an indemnity claim to start before the main action was served on the party seeking indemnity.

The court dismissed the Brokers' motion, holding that the limitation period for Mrs. Kosta-Cadas's indemnity claim commenced when she was served with the main action, not when she first became aware of potential issues with the mortgage.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of real estate.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, leading to the plaintiffs reselling their home at a significant loss.

The defendants raised defenses of non est factum and failure to tender, and challenged the appropriateness of partial summary judgment and the calculation of damages.

The court dismissed the defendants' defenses, found partial summary judgment appropriate given the severability of the main action from the third-party claims, and assessed the plaintiffs' damages at $298,847.67.

The court ordered the immediate release of the $30,000 deposit to the plaintiffs and stayed the enforcement of the remaining judgment for six months, pending the resolution of the defendants' third-party claim.

A costs decision in a family law application involving custody, access, and child support.

The application was resolved through three case conferences resulting in a final settlement.

Both parents claimed costs, but the court found the mother was the more successful party.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs in the amount of $10,000 all-inclusive, representing a fair and reasonable amount proportionate to the issues involved.