4 total
Partial indemnity costs of $67,000 awarded to successful parties in commercial lease applications.
Following reasons for judgment in two related applications regarding a commercial lease, the successful parties, The Tire Pit Inc. and Michael Goldlist, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The court found that the conduct of the unsuccessful parties did not rise to the egregious level required for substantial indemnity costs.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs, ordering Augend and Charles Bulmer jointly and severally to pay $36,000 to The Tire Pit Inc., and Augend to pay $31,000 to Michael Goldlist.
The Court of Appeal upheld the return of a buyer's deposit because the seller failed to disclose a second pipeline easement and related litigation.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision requiring him to return a $50,000 deposit to the respondent in a real estate transaction.
The respondent had refused to close the purchase after discovering a second TransCanada Pipeline easement running under the pool, cabana, and patio that had not been disclosed in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, along with undisclosed litigation between the appellant and the pipeline company.
The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellant breached the APS by failing to convey title free from undisclosed restrictions and by attempting to require the respondent to sign an agreement the appellant had contracted to execute.
A purchaser was entitled to rescind a real estate agreement and recover his deposit due to the vendors' failure to disclose a material pipeline easement and related litigation.
The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages and release of a deposit following a failed real estate transaction, while the defendant counterclaimed for the deposit's return.
The transaction failed because the defendant discovered undisclosed TransCanada Pipeline (TCPL) easements, including one under the pool and cabana, which allowed TCPL to demand their removal and was subject to ongoing litigation.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to disclose material information regarding the easements and related litigation, which materially affected the property's use and violated the Agreement of Purchase and Sale's title provisions.
Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant, ordering the return of the deposit.
Both claim and counterclaim dismissed; loan claim barred by limitation period.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief confirming that they retained a valid and subsisting mortgage after a loan secured by assignment of that mortgage had been sold to a third party.
The court found that the requested declaration would affect the rights of a mortgagor that was not a party to the proceeding, making such relief inappropriate.
The court also concluded that no viable cause of action existed between the plaintiffs and the remaining defendant.
The defendant’s counterclaim seeking repayment of the loan more than a decade after default was barred by the Limitations Act due to the long delay and absence of any demand.
Both the main action and the counterclaim were dismissed.
