Catherine Willson

The applicant, a condominium developer, sought declarations that the respondent purchaser breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) by failing to close, that the agreement was terminated, and that the deposits paid by the respondent were forfeited.

The respondent argued misrepresentation, claiming the property was not a new pre-construction unit as understood, but an already constructed and occupied model suite.

The court found the respondent in breach of the APS, noting inconsistencies in the respondent's sworn affidavits regarding the agreement's validity.

The court granted the applicant's request, ordering the forfeiture and disbursement of the deposits to the applicant.

The plaintiff moved to oppose the confirmation of an associate judge's report in a construction lien reference.

The associate judge had awarded the plaintiff damages but applied a set-off because the plaintiff unilaterally installed a different, cheaper epoxy than specified in the contract.

The associate judge also declined to award 24% interest and awarded $140,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the associate judge's determinations regarding the set-off, interest rate, or costs.

Peri Formwork Systems Inc. ("Peri") moved for partial summary judgment against Future Design Canada Inc. ("Future") for $52,865.75, representing unpaid invoices for industrial construction equipment rental.

Future defended by alleging an oral "pay when paid" agreement and claiming overcharges.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the written "entire agreement" clause governed, and Future's course of conduct contradicted the alleged oral agreement.

The court also found Future's overcharging allegations vague and unsupported by evidence.

Partial summary judgment was granted to Peri, and the balance of the action (trust claim) was dismissed with Peri's consent to avoid inconsistent decisions.

Following a trial regarding scaffolding rental and demobilization expenses, the plaintiff obtained judgment for $107,091.30 out of a claimed $471,436.41.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $158,096.83, while the defendant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the defendant was the more successful party at trial, as the plaintiff failed on the major issue of demobilization expenses and recovered less than a quarter of its claim.

As the plaintiff did not beat any of its settlement offers, the court ordered each side to bear its own costs.

The plaintiff, a scaffolding supplier, sued the defendant, a forest products manufacturer, for breach of contract after the defendant terminated its services.

The plaintiff claimed damages for unpaid demobilization costs and for scaffolding equipment that was allegedly contaminated and had to be scrapped.

The court found that there was no agreement for the defendant to pay demobilization costs, dismissing that portion of the claim.

However, the court found the defendant liable for the contaminated equipment, assessing damages based on 40 percent of the equipment being scrapped, and awarded the plaintiff $107,091.30.

The respondent in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home, carriage of the sale, exclusive possession, and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought an adjournment, which the court denied.

The court declined to order the immediate sale of the home or vary the existing exclusive possession order so close to trial, provided the applicant complies with a proposal to pay $20,000 monthly towards outstanding costs and $12,350 monthly for support and arrears.

The court also ordered the applicant to comply with outstanding financial disclosure requests.

This is a costs endorsement following a failed partial summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The plaintiff, One-Way Drywall Inc., sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing their summary judgment motion, which was described as "audacious" and a "tactical maneuver" that delayed justice.

Applying Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded One-Way Drywall Inc. costs of $33,340.65, all inclusive, on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment or to strike the plaintiff's breach of trust claim under the Construction Lien Act.

The defendants argued the claim was moot because they had placed funds equal to the plaintiff's original claim in their lawyer's trust account.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the breach of trust claim had substantive legal value independent of the breach of contract claim, particularly because a judgment for breach of trust would likely survive a potential bankruptcy under section 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The moving defendant sought to set aside a default judgment and writ of seizure and sale arising from a claim for repayment of funds advanced toward the purchase of a residential property.

The motion alleged inadequate notice, collusion between the plaintiff and a co‑defendant, and that the funds were a gift rather than a loan.

Applying the three‑part test for setting aside default judgments, the court considered promptness, explanation for the default, and whether there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The evidence, including communications acknowledging the debt and circumstances surrounding the financing, demonstrated that the funds were a loan rather than a gift.

The court found no meritorious defence and dismissed the motion.

Following dismissal of a motion to vary and a finding of contempt for failure to comply with a prior order regarding sale of the matrimonial home, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs based on alleged bad faith and unreasonable conduct.

The court held that although substantial indemnity costs had been awarded on an earlier related motion, no offer to settle had been served in relation to the present motion.

Considering the circumstances, including substantial success and the duplication of issues previously litigated, the court fixed costs on a reduced basis.

Costs were ordered in a lump sum of $15,000 all inclusive.