Who is Brent Stephen John Cumming?

Brent Stephen John Cumming is an Ontario lawyer (In Private Practice) with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2018.

What courts has Brent Stephen John Cumming appeared in?

Brent Stephen John Cumming has appeared in Superior Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, with most appearances at the Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Brent Stephen John Cumming handled?

Brent Stephen John Cumming has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2018.

What judges has Brent Stephen John Cumming appeared before?

Brent Stephen John Cumming has most frequently appeared before Justice Robert E. Charney, Justice Ian V.B. Nordheimer, Justice Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg.

Brent Stephen John Cumming | Lawyer

3 total

Savo v. Moursalien, 2018 ONCA 981

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.

ONCADec 4, 2018

Respondent Counsel

Savo and Robichaud v Moursalien, 2016 ONSC 3326

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.

SCJMay 19, 2016

Respondent Counsel

Salmon v. Laurentian Bank of Canada et al., 2013 ONSC 2324

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.

Applicant Counsel