Christopher W. Statham

The applicants sought to enforce a written settlement agreement reached with the respondents regarding their exclusion from a convenience store and gas station business known as Wright's Variety.

The applicants alleged they were beneficial owners and shareholders of the corporation based on a verbal agreement and subsequent written settlement agreement.

The respondents denied the validity of the settlement agreement, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, lack of meeting of the minds, unmet conditions, duress, and undue influence.

The court found serious factual disputes incapable of resolution on documentary evidence alone and declined to grant judgment on the settlement agreement.

The court also declined to grant an interlocutory injunction, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The plaintiff, Galaxy Communities Inc., initiated a construction lien action against the owners and a financial institution.

Galaxy failed to comply with court orders and did not appear for trial, resulting in a non-suit of its claim.

The court proceeded with the undefended counterclaim brought by the owners, alleging breach of contract due to deficient construction work, unapproved design changes, and delayed performance.

The court found the contractor in breach and awarded the owners damages for rectification costs, project management fees, and delay-related expenses.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of agreements governing the distribution of settlement funds and the reimbursement of litigation costs following the settlement of two professional negligence actions against KPMG.

The appellants, Benzer Ltd. and Rajneesh Mathur, argued that the application judge erred in denying their reimbursement for costs under an Assignment Agreement, contending that the phrase "if any" regarding legal costs awarded should not apply when no costs were awarded.

They also argued that security for costs funds should be included in "net amounts recovered" for calculating their 15% compensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation that the "if any" clause was valid and that security for costs were litigation expenses, not "net amounts recovered."

The applicants, members of the Geneva Park community and Friends of Geneva Park, brought an urgent application seeking declarations of trust (implied, constructive, resulting, or charitable purpose trust) over the Geneva Park property, an order for directions or investigation under the Charities Accounting Act, production of the sale agreement, a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and an interim injunction to prevent the sale of the property by YMCA of Simcoe/Muskoka (YSM) to a private purchaser.

The applicants argued that their historical donations and contributions created a beneficial interest or trust.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence to support the creation of any trust, no misuse of charitable funds by YSM, and that granting an injunction or CPL would be unjust and inequitable, as the sale was a reasonable solution for the financially struggling charity.

This endorsement addresses a procedural motion brought by the defendant, Li Ping Shao, seeking an order for the disbursement of funds from the net proceeds of a property sale, held in trust, to cover her living expenses and legal fees.

The plaintiffs, Shan Shan Xu and Jian Zhang, oppose this request.

The court, following a case conference, established a detailed timetable for the motion, including deadlines for motion records, responding records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the hearing scheduled for March 29, 2021.

The endorsement clarifies that the presiding judge is not seized of the matter.

The plaintiff agreed to purchase a residential property from the defendant.

Before closing, a fire damaged the property.

The defendant, whose insurance did not cover repairs due to vacancy, undertook repairs.

The plaintiff, a structural engineer, expressed concerns about the extent of the damage, the quality of repairs, and the lack of disclosure, and was denied the opportunity to inspect the damage before repairs.

The plaintiff ultimately refused to close the transaction due to unsatisfactory disclosure.

The defendant claimed anticipatory breach and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found that the defendant breached the agreement of purchase and sale by failing to provide the plaintiff a timely and meaningful opportunity to inspect the damage and by not acting in good faith in addressing the plaintiff's concerns.

The damage was deemed 'substantial' despite repair costs being a small percentage of the purchase price, as the quality, character, and consequences of the damage must also be considered.

The plaintiff's action for the return of his deposit was allowed, and the defendant's counterclaim for damages was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance for a failed new home purchase, alleging the vendor acted in bad faith by refusing a closing extension and that there was an implied financing condition.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action, termination of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), and forfeiture of the deposit.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the vendor acted in good faith, no implied financing condition existed, the property was not unique, and the purchasers defaulted, leading to deposit forfeiture.

The appellant law firm appealed a trial judge's decision regarding a property transfer from the respondent husband to his wife.

The trial judge found that the husband did not intend to defeat creditors when transferring his joint legal title in the matrimonial home because he had no beneficial interest in the property.

The wife had supplied the down-payment and made all mortgage payments.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's factual findings and dismissed the appeal without costs.

The court heard three motions for summary judgment in two related actions concerning second and third mortgages on a property.

The defendant, Hassan Talani, challenged the validity of these mortgages, claiming the property was a matrimonial home requiring spousal consent and that prior mortgages prohibited subsequent encumbrances.

He also counterclaimed against his real estate lawyer, Laman Meshadiyeva, alleging negligence and exploitation of a gambling addiction.

The court rejected Talani's arguments, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the matrimonial home status or the validity of the mortgages.

The court also dismissed Talani's counterclaim against Meshadiyeva due to lack of evidence.

Partial summary judgment was deemed appropriate, removing the mortgagees and lawyer from the litigation while allowing other discrete claims to proceed.

The appellant, widow of a deceased party to a right of first refusal agreement, sought to exercise the right to purchase property on the same terms as an offer made to a third party.

The motion judge found that the right of first refusal was limited to the original parties to the agreement and did not extend to family members.

The appellant failed to establish her authority to act on behalf of the deceased's estate and based her claim on her status as a family member.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no ambiguity in the agreement and no legal error in the interpretation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion for summary judgment in an action brought by the respondents.

The appellant sought to end the Ontario action based on a previously dismissed lawsuit brought by the respondent against the appellant in India relating to the same cause of action.

The appellant invoked res judicata and abuse of process defences, and relied on a provision of the Indian Civil Procedure Code.

The motion judge denied the motion, finding that the respondent had never been served in the Indian action and no disposition had been made on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's treatment of the Indian law provision or in the application of res judicata and abuse of process doctrines.