Christopher M. Tucker

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated July 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The Plaintiffs, Hassan Siddiqui and Sara Al-Ahmar, sought summary judgment against real estate agents and their agencies (Gyanesh Paliwal, Re-Max Realty Specialists Inc., Sanjay Bhayana, and World Class Realty Point) to recover commissions and a premium paid in an assignment of a pre-construction home purchase.

The underlying purchase agreement was not completed by the builder, who returned the deposit but not the premium or commissions.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled with the original assignor, Haarikka Sivanarayan.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding no contractual basis for recovery from the real estate agents as the Plaintiffs did not directly pay the commissions, and the assignor was responsible for them.

Furthermore, the court found no unjust enrichment as there was no direct deprivation of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the agents' enrichment.

The plaintiffs, Donna and Ronald Zoleta, sought summary judgment against the purchaser, Lovesikander Singh, and the real estate agent, RE/MAX Twin City Realty Inc., for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) of a property.

Singh failed to close the transaction after the real estate market declined and an appraisal showed a significantly lower property value, demanding a large abatement.

The plaintiffs relisted the property "pre-emptively" but maintained their intent to close the original deal.

Singh argued the relisting repudiated the contract and prevented him from securing financing, and also alleged conspiracy between the plaintiffs and RE/MAX.

The court found that Singh repudiated the APS by demanding an abatement, and the plaintiffs did not accept this repudiation.

The court further found that the plaintiffs' relisting of the property did not constitute repudiation, as they provided notice and continued to affirm the agreement.

Singh also failed to accept any alleged repudiation by the plaintiffs in a timely manner, instead affirming the contract through requests for extension.

The court dismissed Singh's conspiracy claims due to lack of evidence and damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for damages, and Singh's crossclaim and counterclaim were dismissed.

The defendants moved to transfer an action from Hamilton to Newmarket and to consolidate it with an application in Toronto.

The action arose from a failed residential property sale in Vaughan.

The court granted the transfer of the action to Newmarket, finding that the events, property, and parties were all located in York Region, making Newmarket a significantly better venue than Hamilton, which had no factual connection.

The motion to transfer and consolidate the application was dismissed as premature, requiring the application to first be converted to an action in Toronto.

At a pre-trial conference for a construction dispute, the parties agreed to vacate the scheduled trial dates and establish a protocol for a joint site inspection.

The inspection will involve representatives from various engineering and consulting firms to determine structural deficiencies, remediation methods, and costs.

The court issued a consent order detailing the inspection process, deadlines for expert reports, and scheduled a further pre-trial conference.

On a written Rule 2.1 review, the court dismissed an action arising from power of sale proceedings, the subsequent sale of a property, and allegations that multiple defendants colluded to deprive the plaintiff of property and belongings.

The court held the plaintiff lacked standing because the property had been owned by a dissolved corporation, found no pleaded cause of action against the various defendants, and accepted that the claims were also abuse of process and statute-barred on their face.

The court further relied on overlap with an earlier Brampton action concerning the same underlying property dispute.

The entire action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

In a contaminated land action arising from a real estate purchase, certain real estate defendants settled with the plaintiffs under a Pierringer Agreement and sought to be removed from the proceeding.

The remaining vendor defendant refused to abandon a cross-claim against the listing agent and brokerage that pleaded both negligence and breach of contract under the listing agreement.

The court held that Pierringer principles applicable to contributory negligence claims did not plainly foreclose a distinct contractual indemnity claim by a non-settling defendant who was not party to the settlement agreement.

The motion to strike that cross-claim was dismissed, although a separate contributory-negligence-only cross-claim was struck on consent.