C.F. de Sa

The applicants sold a residential property to the respondent, who failed to close the transaction after multiple extensions.

The applicants subsequently resold the property in a falling market for a substantially lower price and sought damages for the difference in purchase price and carrying costs.

The court awarded damages of $817,756.08, compensating the applicants for the drop in property value and carrying costs, but excluded claims for real estate commissions not paid on the original transaction and renegotiated interest.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment of $278,821.41.

The defendant's insurance adjuster had inadvertently missed communications from the plaintiffs' counsel, leading to the default.

Applying the five-part test from Mountain View Farms, the court found the failure to defend was due to inadvertence, the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the judgment, and there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the default judgment was set aside.

The applicant landlord and respondent tenant could not agree on the prevailing market rent for a three-year lease renewal of a property used as a Montessori school.

The landlord brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) for a determination of the minimum rent.

The parties submitted competing expert appraisal reports, with the landlord's expert suggesting $23.00 per square foot and the tenant's expert suggesting $12.00 to $14.00 per square foot.

The court considered the property's specific use, zoning, amenities, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, ultimately determining the appropriate market rent to be $18.00 per square foot.

The third-party defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant/third-party plaintiff on the eve of trial, citing the latter's recent insolvency.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party delayed in bringing the motion despite knowing of the financial issues months earlier.

Ordering security for costs at this late stage would necessitate an adjournment, prejudicing all parties and delaying a trial on the merits.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for breach of contract in 2018 and the defendant counterclaimed.

After pleadings were exchanged, a trial record was served, and discoveries were held, the plaintiffs brought a motion to stay the action and refer the dispute to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitration by initiating the claim and taking significant steps in the litigation, and that ordering arbitration at this late stage would be unfair to the defendant.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving and appealed on the basis that his section 9 Charter rights were violated due to arbitrary detention.

He was held in custody for six hours after completing his breath test.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter application, finding the police conducted an ongoing assessment and reasonably detained him due to his high level of intoxication and risk of repeating the offence.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's application of the law and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for the outstanding balance on a conditional sales agreement for a vehicle.

The defendant argued she was pressured into signing the agreement by a third party and did not understand the documents due to a language barrier, raising defences of duress and non est factum.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, rejecting the duress defence as there was no evidence the dealership was aware of any pressure, and rejecting the non est factum defence due to the defendant's carelessness in signing without reading or asking questions.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a commercial property after the plaintiffs refused to close the transaction.

The plaintiffs argued the agreement was part of a larger five-property deal and that the defendants acted in bad faith by only waiving conditions on one property while restructuring the vendor take-back mortgage.

The court found that while the plaintiffs raised valid concerns about the defendants' conduct, the defendants had a triable claim to an interest in land and had invested substantially in development plans.

The court granted the CPL on the condition that the defendants' principal provide a personal indemnity undertaking.

Following a previous decision awarding the Estate Trustee full indemnity costs, the court issued this endorsement to correct the costs amount.

The court noted that further costs had been incurred and a subsequent draft order with updated costs had been filed on consent.

The Estate Trustee's full indemnity costs were updated to $19,907.93.

The applicant, a federal inmate, challenged his involuntary transfer from a minimum-security to a medium-security institution and the corresponding increase in his security classification.

He argued the decision was procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and lacked evidentiary foundation.

The court found that the Correctional Service of Canada complied with its disclosure obligations by providing sufficient summaries of withheld confidential information.

The court also held that the Warden's decision was reasonable, as the applicant's escalating deceitful and intimidating behaviour demonstrated he could no longer be safely managed in a minimum-security environment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving and 'over 80', arguing that the Crown's cross-examination of its own police witness during a blended trial and voir dire resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated when he was not permitted to contact his father to arrange counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the procedural irregularity did not render the trial unfair and that the trial judge's factual finding that the appellant sought to contact his father for emotional support rather than to retain counsel was entitled to deference.

The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent of setting aside the victim fine surcharge.

The Estate Trustee brought a motion for directions regarding the payment of unsecured debts allegedly owed by the deceased to his son and son-in-law.

The debts arose from unpaid wages and financial assistance provided to the deceased over many years.

One of the beneficiaries opposed the payment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked corroboration.

The court found that the deceased had acknowledged the debts and intended to repay them upon the sale of his property.

The court also found that the claims were not statute-barred as they were contingent loans, and alternatively, the son and son-in-law were entitled to the funds on the basis of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the debts to be paid from the estate.

The applicant was pulled over for a traffic infraction and subsequently arrested for breaching a recognizance.

After finding a small amount of marijuana on the applicant's person, police conducted a full search of the vehicle, discovering a firearm.

The applicant brought a Charter application arguing the stop was racially motivated and the search and questioning violated his rights.

The court found no arbitrary detention but concluded the police violated the applicant's s. 10(b) rights through improper questioning and his s. 8 rights by conducting an unreasonable search that exceeded their authority under the Cannabis Control Act.

The firearm was excluded from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The offender was found guilty of child luring and obtaining sexual services offences following an undercover police operation.

During sentencing, the offender brought a Charter challenge arguing that the mandatory minimum sentences of one year and six months for these offences violated section 12 of the Charter.

The court applied the gross disproportionality test and considered reasonable hypotheticals, finding that the mandatory minimums could result in grossly disproportionate sentences.

The court declared the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions under sections 172.1(2)(a), 172.2(2)(a), and 286.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to be of no force or effect.

The appellant was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine after a police officer peered into a public washroom stall and observed him preparing drugs.

At trial, the judge found a breach of the appellant's s. 8 Charter rights but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), noting the appellant's reduced privacy interest because he was using the stall solely for illicit purposes.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in considering his unlawful use of the stall in the s. 24(2) analysis.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that while the nature of the activity does not affect the existence of a privacy interest under s. 8, it is highly relevant to assessing the seriousness of the breach under s. 24(2).

The offender, a pharmacist, was convicted of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl.

She participated in a scheme with a doctor and another individual to divert thousands of fentanyl patches using false prescriptions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe breach of trust and the devastating impact of fentanyl.

Despite the offender's rare medical condition and lack of a criminal record, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment.

The applicant sought to be appointed as Estate Trustee pursuant to the deceased's 2018 will, which left virtually the entire estate to her and excluded the deceased's four children.

The children contested the will's validity, alleging undue influence and cognitive impairment due to brain cancer.

The court declined to appoint the applicant as Estate Trustee and ordered the parties to select a mutually agreeable trustee to manage the estate pending the outcome of the litigation.

The plaintiff, on behalf of his deceased father's estate, brought a motion to compel the passing of accounts regarding the spending of his father's deceased wife, who had acted as the father's Attorney for Property for nearly ten years.

The defendant, the wife's daughter and estate trustee, opposed the motion, arguing she could not account for her mother's spending and would be unfairly prejudiced.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there is no statutory limitation period for passing accounts, ordering one in these circumstances would result in a clear injustice, and the issues surrounding suspicious property transfers were better suited for the outstanding main action.

The applicant, a former CEO, brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel of record, arguing that the lawyers were likely to be called as witnesses regarding his termination and share valuation, and that they had a conflict of interest from previously setting up a trust structure for him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lawyers were acting for the corporation, not the applicant personally, and that the only genuine issue in dispute was the valuation of shares, making the lawyers' evidence regarding alleged oppression irrelevant.

The defendant brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The action arose from Facebook posts made by the defendant alleging workplace harassment and poor business practices by the plaintiff travel agency following a dispute with a former employee.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's claim had sufficient merit and the harm suffered was serious enough that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The motion was dismissed.