4 total
A mortgagee's motion for a writ of possession and a declaration exempting the property from the Residential Tenancies Act was adjourned for insufficient evidence and lack of notice to occupants.
A second mortgagee sought leave to issue a Writ of Possession and an order that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to the mortgaged property pursuant to section 5(i) of that Act.
The mortgaged property had multiple occupants sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities.
The court found that the evidence was insufficient to determine whether section 5(i) applied and that notice must be given to the owner and tenants before such a determination could be made, as it would affect their rights under the RTA.
The motion was adjourned pending service on the owner and tenants and further submissions.
The court ordered the return of a $50,000 commercial real estate deposit after the sellers repudiated the agreement by failing to address outstanding fuel tank work orders.
The court considered a failed real estate transaction for a commercial property, where the plaintiff sought rescission and return of a $50,000 deposit after discovering outstanding work orders for a fuel tank.
The defendants counterclaimed for forfeiture of the deposit and damages.
The court found that the defendants repudiated the agreement, the plaintiff accepted the repudiation, and the defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining the deposit.
The court ordered the return of the deposit and dismissed all other claims.
Statement of Claim struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and abuse of process.
The moving defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for being improperly pleaded.
The plaintiffs failed to file materials or appear at the hearing.
The court found the claim lacked clarity, failed to specify causes of action against specific defendants, and amounted to an abuse of process.
Additionally, the corporate plaintiffs were in default of their annual filings, and plaintiffs' counsel failed to confirm his authority to commence the proceeding.
The motion was granted, and the claim was struck in its entirety against the moving defendants.
The court granted specific performance of a contract formed via email to unwind a share purchase agreement.
The defendants, T-Bay Movers Corporation and Konrad Kuhne, moved for partial summary judgment on their counterclaim against the plaintiff, Sean Bouttell, seeking specific performance of a "Second Contract" to unwind a previous share purchase agreement.
The plaintiff argued that the email exchanges did not constitute a binding contract and raised issues of illegality and non-compliance with the Ontario Business Corporations Act.
The court found that the email exchanges clearly evidenced a meeting of the minds, forming a binding "Second Contract." The plaintiff's arguments regarding the conditional nature of the agreement and illegality were rejected due to lack of credible evidence.
The court granted specific performance to the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety, as it was premised on the non-existence of the "Second Contract."
