Christopher Belsito

The court considered a motion by Roberto Aguiar for an order declaring that a settlement was reached with Viele Professional Corporation and Frances M. Viele regarding an assessment of legal accounts.

The court found that a binding settlement was reached on or about November 19, 2024, for $15,000 and a tailored release, and that the settlement was thwarted by Ms. Viele’s insistence on the wording of the release.

The motion was granted, and the parties were directed to finalize the release and complete the settlement.

This appeal concerned a failed residential real estate transaction where the appellant refused to close, alleging an undisclosed basement defect.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondents (sellers), finding the defect was readily apparent and applying the principle of *caveat emptor*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision, finding no material error in the analysis, despite acknowledging a minor error in relying on hearsay evidence.

The court emphasized the appellant's delay in raising the issue and his financial difficulties as factors supporting the motion judge's findings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' 2019 statement of claim, arguing it was based on information obtained during discovery in a related 2018 action.

The court found that the plaintiffs breached the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by using discovery evidence to launch a new proceeding rather than seeking to amend the existing claim.

The motion to strike was granted, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to remove references to protected information.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant failed to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued he was justified in not closing because he discovered a concealed latent defect in the basement floor, which he alleged was evidence of a major flood and structural damage.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as lacking credibility, finding that the defect was patent, visible during the initial inspection, and that the rule of caveat emptor applied.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs for damages resulting from the aborted sale.

The court determined the scale and quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in two consolidated actions.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging abuse of process, unsubstantiated allegations, and undue complication of litigation.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct, while meritless and complicating, did not rise to the level of maliciousness or sanctionable abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Grohotolski Defendants ($136,677.24), Ms. Steele and Ms. Wolfe ($78,316.92), and Motion Endeavours, Tim Quocksister, and Silver Arrow ($16,000.00).

The court also set out a process for the remaining counterclaims by Mr. Quocksister and Silver Arrow, requiring personal service of summary judgment motion materials on the plaintiff.

The third party brought a motion to vary the court's reasons for judgment on a previous motion, seeking to remove adverse credibility findings made against him.

The third party argued he was taken by surprise by the credibility attack and had not attended the original motion to provide his explanation.

The court dismissed the motion to vary, finding that the credibility issue was squarely raised in the evidentiary record, specifically during the third party's Rule 39 examination where he was confronted with evidence of an undisclosed commission.

The court held that the findings were not an accidental slip or based on newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06.

The moving party, a car dealer, sought to set aside an interlocutory injunction preventing the transfer of a $1.5 million Ford GT 'super car'.

The plaintiffs alleged the moving party participated in a civil conspiracy to circumvent a 24-month restriction on the vehicle's resale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no new facts or unforeseen change in circumstances since the injunction was granted, and held that the conspiracy claim raised triable issues inappropriate for determination on a motion to set aside an injunction.

The defendant moved under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a summary judgment previously granted in favour of the plaintiffs after an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendant, who was self-represented at the time, had failed to attend the original summary judgment motion due to injuries from a fall and a motor vehicle accident, but his request for an adjournment had been denied.

Applying the test from Tsaoussis v. Baetz, the court found that the new medical evidence explaining his absence could not have been put forward with reasonable diligence at the time, and that an adjournment would have been granted had the court been aware of the injuries.

The motion to set aside the judgment was granted.