Chris Tucker

The Third Party, Toronto Homes and Building Realty Inc., brought a motion to dismiss the third party claim against it due to the Defendant, Mohammad Sobhi's, failure to comply with a prior order for security for costs ($60,000) and a costs order ($7,300).

The Defendant sought an adjournment and leave to file late affidavits, arguing impecuniosity and proposing to use equity from a property (contingent on lifting a certificate of pending litigation) as security.

The court denied the Defendant's requests, finding no compelling reason for non-compliance and that the proposed alternative was a speculative collateral attack on the prior order.

The motion was granted, dismissing the third party claim, and costs were awarded to the Third Party.

The defendants successfully defended motions for summary judgment brought by the plaintiffs and a co-defendant concerning an aborted real estate transaction.

In determining costs, the court criticized the defendants' disorganized, inefficient, and unnecessarily lengthy approach to the motions, which included filing duplicative materials and excessive authorities.

The defendants sought over $108,000 on a full indemnity basis, which the court found astonishing and unsupported by dockets or settlement offers.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $20,000 all-inclusive, payable $14,000 by the plaintiffs and $6,000 by the co-defendant.

The plaintiffs (sellers) and defendants by counterclaim (real estate agents) brought motions for summary judgment regarding an aborted real estate transaction.

The buyers had refused to close after discovering the lot depth was 23% smaller than advertised, claiming they intended to demolish the house and build a larger one.

The sellers argued this intention was fabricated and the mistake did not go to the root of the contract.

The court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, finding that assessing the credibility of the buyer's stated intention required a trial.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a Registrar's dismissal, and the defendant cross-moved to dismiss the action for delay.

The court applied the Reid Factors, finding the plaintiffs provided an adequate explanation for delay, demonstrated inadvertence by counsel, and brought the motion promptly.

Crucially, the defendant failed to establish real prejudice.

The court emphasized the policy of resolving disputes on their merits, especially when delay is due to counsel's inadvertence.

The court also declined to enforce a consent order's dismissal clause under Rule 60.12, deeming dismissal an extreme remedy not warranted by the plaintiffs' conduct.

The plaintiff, Leroy Dirckx, sued the defendant, William Martin, for damages related to the sale of a convenience store and real property.

Dirckx alleged improper conversion of goods, depleted inventory, removed equipment, and disrepair after Martin took possession but failed to close the deal.

Martin counterclaimed for misrepresentation and aggravated damages, alleging Dirckx misrepresented title and business income.

The court found that Dirckx was entitled to damages for inventory, equipment, water charges, and property taxes, but dismissed his claim for rent.

Martin's counterclaim for misrepresentation and aggravated damages was dismissed, as he failed to establish liability or meet the threshold for psychological injury.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff at $28,877.31.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to perfect an appeal of a small claims court settlement agreement.

The appellant argued she did not understand the agreement due to a language barrier and lack of an interpreter.

Despite a substantial delay of up to one year, primarily caused by her former counsel, the court found her explanation reasonable.

The court granted the extension, noting the serious consideration required when a self-represented person enters an agreement without a needed interpreter.