Coats

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that the contract was frustrated and subject to force majeure because she could not transfer funds from Afghanistan due to the Taliban takeover, nor could she sell another property.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no force majeure clause in the agreement and that the doctrine of frustration did not apply because the lack of funds was not a supervening event that radically altered the contract.

The plaintiffs were awarded $280,739.28 in damages, representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs, and the deposit was ordered released to them.

The applicant and respondent were unmarried spouses who separated in 2015.

The applicant owned the home they lived in.

Following criminal charges, the applicant was forced to leave the home, and the respondent remained.

The applicant brought an application for a writ of possession and an order that the respondent vacate the property.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found that the respondent had no legal interest in the property and was remaining on the property without lawful justification, constituting trespass.

The court granted the applicant a writ of possession and ordered the respondent to vacate the property.

The respondent brought a motion to terminate an interim without prejudice spousal support order.

The respondent's income had significantly decreased due to job loss, while the applicant's income had increased and surpassed the respondent's.

The court applied the test for varying a temporary support order and found a strong prima facie case for a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that continuing the order would cause financial hardship and be incongruous and absurd, and therefore terminated the temporary spousal support obligation.

During a criminal trial for sexual offences, the Crown sought to cross-examine the accused regarding an alleged attempt to contact a potential witness on social media.

The defence objected.

The court denied the Crown's request, finding that the proposed cross-examination would only serve to show circumstantially bad character.

The court held that the prejudicial effect of allowing the jury to infer disreputable conduct outweighed any probative value, and the evidence did not tend to prove that the sexual activity with the complainant was non-consensual.

During a sexual assault trial, the Crown brought an application to admit prior consistent statements made by the complainant to a friend via Snapchat on the night of the alleged offence.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary to rebut the defence's allegation of recent fabrication raised during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence's theory posited the motive to fabricate arose before the Snapchat conversation occurred, specifically when the complainant's mother picked her up and she feared punishment for breaking parental rules.

Consequently, the statements lacked probative value to rebut the allegation.

The plaintiff builder brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant purchasers for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after the defendants failed to close on a pre-built home.

The defendants argued the APS was frustrated by a decline in the real estate market which prevented them from obtaining financing.

The court found the defendants breached the APS, holding that a market decline does not constitute frustration of contract.

The court awarded damages for the loss in property value, carrying costs, and increased real estate commission fees, but declined to enforce a 15% interest provision in the APS, finding it surprisingly onerous and unenforceable.

The defendant franchisor brought a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim, seeking declaratory relief and enforcement of a personal guarantee for unpaid costs from a previous order.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party acknowledged it was no longer seeking the damages originally pleaded in its counterclaim, and the declaratory and guarantee relief sought on the motion had never been pleaded in the counterclaim.

The court held that summary judgment could not be granted for relief that was not properly before the court in the underlying action.

The estate trustee for the deceased respondent brought a motion seeking to represent the estate in her personal capacity without legal counsel.

The court held that an estate trustee acts in a representative capacity and is therefore required by Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to be represented by a lawyer.

The motion was dismissed, and the estate trustee was ordered to retain counsel.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff bank, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on contractual provisions in the credit agreements.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, fixing them at $5,500 against the primary debtor and $50 against the co-debtor whose liability was limited to a small overdraft amount.

The applicant sought to be appointed as litigation guardian for her 89-year-old grandfather, who suffers from dementia, in order to pursue an application against his former attorney for property for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The respondent opposed the appointment, arguing there was insufficient medical evidence of incapacity.

The court reviewed the uncontroverted evidence, including letters from the attending physician and observations from the care team, and found the grandfather incapable of managing property.

The applicant was appointed as litigation guardian.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the self-represented defendants for outstanding debts on a line of credit, credit card, and overdraft account.

The defendants admitted to the agreements and amounts owing but argued they could withhold payment due to the plaintiff's alleged non-compliance with PIPEDA and the CBCA.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting that PIPEDA and the CBCA do not provide a defence to liability for the debts.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion to strike an affidavit and for disclosure was dismissed.

The plaintiff purchaser brought an action for damages against the defendant vendor for breach of an amended Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a 45-acre development property.

The vendor had repudiated the contract, claiming the purchaser failed to pay a $400,000 deposit.

The court found that the amended agreement implicitly removed the deposit requirement, meaning the vendor's repudiation constituted an anticipatory breach.

The court held that the purchaser was ready, willing, and able to close, and was not required to tender given the vendor's clear repudiation.

The court rejected the vendor's argument that the purchaser failed to mitigate, finding the property was unique and no comparable properties were available.

The court awarded the purchaser $11,122,345.27 in damages for lost expected profits, relying on the plaintiff's expert planner.

The parties resolved a motion regarding parenting time and decision-making by way of Temporary Minutes of Settlement.

Both parties subsequently sought costs of the motion.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $8,841.12, while the respondent sought $5,000.00.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the settlement reflected a true compromise and neither party beat their respective offers.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an order to temporarily relocate with the parties' two children to Montreal, Quebec, pending a final determination.

The applicant father opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion was premature, as the proceeding was in its earliest stages, no pleadings had been filed, and the evidentiary record was incomplete and highly conflicted.

The court held that the mother failed to meet the burden of proving that the temporary relocation was in the children's best interests and declined to abridge the 60-day notice requirement under the Divorce Act.

The motion for relocation was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motions to vary interim support and sell the matrimonial home, the respondent sought full recovery costs of $21,127.61, alleging bad faith.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but rejected the bad faith claim, noting the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold of egregious behaviour or intent to harm.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $12,500.

The respondent brought an urgent motion regarding the applicant's non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols, resulting in an order that the child primarily reside with the respondent.

Following the motion, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and awarded him costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $5,356.20, after considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment on a conditional sales contract, the plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court awarded the plaintiff $9,936.13 in full indemnity costs, relying on a specific provision in the contract that provided for such costs in the event of default.

The third party's request for costs for attending the motion was deferred to be dealt with in the third party claim.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a final order that had provided for shared decision-making, week-about parenting, and no child support.

Following an incident where the respondent father locked the children out of his home, the children resided exclusively with the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding both parenting and child support.

After conducting a judicial interview with the two older children, the court awarded the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, with no contact for the respondent.

The court also imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay Guideline child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a motor vehicle accident trial where the plaintiffs' claims were effectively dismissed after a threshold motion, the defendants sought costs of $275,259.55 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply since the action was dismissed, and substantial indemnity costs were not warranted as there was no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, reduced by 20 percent to account for the principal plaintiff's financial hardship.

No costs were awarded against the derivative Family Law Act claimant.

The applicant brought a motion to change an interim spousal and child support order, claiming a severe reduction in income due to COVID-19, and sought the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the motion, seeking to maintain exclusive possession of the home and requesting the release of the applicant's share of cottage sale proceeds to satisfy support arrears.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to change support, finding no substantial change in circumstances as the applicant failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure.

The court also dismissed the motion to sell the matrimonial home based on issue estoppel.

The court ordered $125,000 of the applicant's share of the cottage proceeds to be released to the respondent towards support arrears.