Candace Man-Ying Mak

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant failed to close on the agreed date and argued the signed agreement was not binding because a clause requiring mutual consent to advance the closing date had not been initialed.

The court applied an objective test and found the signed agreement was valid and binding, noting the defendant had twice signed amendments confirming the existing terms.

Summary judgment was granted in the amount of $76,965.12, representing the difference between the contract price and resale price plus carrying costs, less the deposit which was credited against damages per the Court of Appeal's analysis in Azzarello.

The claim for lost Airbnb income was denied.

The defendant moving party sought to set aside a noting in default after failing to deliver a timely notice of intent to defend or statement of defence in a civil action over allegedly erroneous credit-report entries.

Applying rr. 19.03(1) and the discretionary framework in appellate authority, the court emphasized determination on the merits, contextual balancing, and prejudice analysis rather than technical default consequences.

The court found the delay was not significant, was explained by an internal service-date mistake, and was followed by prompt steps to investigate and engage opposing counsel.

The plaintiff filed no affidavit evidence of non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted and the noting in default was set aside.

The applicant brought a motion for outstanding financial disclosure in a long-running family law matter involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, a self-employed dentist operating multiple dental practices, brought a cross-motion for disclosure regarding the matrimonial home.

The court granted the majority of the applicant's disclosure requests, finding the respondent's financial records relevant to assessing whether a disconnect exists between his reported income and lifestyle, and noting that two prior disclosure orders remained unfulfilled.

The court declined certain requests as premature, including those affecting non-parties who had not been served.

The respondent's cross-motion regarding the matrimonial home was granted.

Ninety days was provided for compliance with most items.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to validate service of the Statement of Claim on one of the defendants in an assault action arising from a 2015 incident that resulted in the death of the decedent.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay under r. 24.01.

The court declined to validate service, finding the claim did not come to the defendant's notice within the prescribed time and the defendant was not evading service.

The court also declined to extend time for service under r. 3.02, finding presumed and actual prejudice to the defendant.

Applying the test for dismissal for delay, the court found the over-8-year delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial, creating a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The action was dismissed as against the moving defendant.