Conor D. O’Hare

The plaintiff, a trust company, sought summary judgment to enforce a compensation agreement for its services as attorney for property under a continuing power of attorney.

The defendant, who had revoked the power of attorney, disputed the quantum of fees, arguing that compensation should be determined by the Substitute Decisions Act rather than the contractual agreement.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the express compensation terms in the validly executed agreement superseded the statutory compensation scheme under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the enforceability of the contract or the calculation of fees based on the agreed-upon formula.

The plaintiff software provider sued the defendant investment management firm for unpaid invoices under an Investment Administration Services Agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could charge additional fees based on the Assets Under Administration (AUA) of all the defendant's funds, or only the specific fund for which the software was initially used.

The court applied principles of commercial contractual interpretation and found the plain language of the Agreement allowed fees based on total AUA.

The plaintiff was awarded $16,242.19 for AUA fees.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for concurrent user fees and post-termination service charges, finding the contract ambiguous on concurrent users and noting the plaintiff breached its own post-termination obligations.

The defendant's counterclaim for wrongful termination was dismissed because the termination was lawful given the unpaid AUA fees.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis until an offer was served, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The court found no basis in law or fact to award substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Considering the defendants' delay in bringing the summary judgment motion despite knowing the facts early on, the court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment seeking return of a $100,000 deposit paid under an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property after the transaction failed to close.

The vendor refused to close unless the purchaser agreed to additional conditions concerning demolition or renovation that were not contained in the agreement.

The court found the vendor’s conduct constituted anticipatory breach and repudiation of the agreement.

The purchaser was therefore entitled to recover the deposit.

In any event, even if the purchaser had repudiated the agreement, the court would grant equitable relief from forfeiture because the vendor resold the property at a significantly higher price and suffered no financial loss.

In the context of a corporate liquidation, the court heard a scheduling appointment regarding the Liquidator's First Report.

Various parties sought directions on responding to the report, accessing corporate records, and obtaining documentary production.

The court established a timetable for responding materials and granted certain parties access to the company's records, subject to a strict 'pay as you play' cost deposit regime to prevent fishing expeditions.

Requests for production from the bankrupt applicant were directed to his bankruptcy trustee.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action regarding a land transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the action was statute-barred.

The court held that the appellants' real estate lawyer had knowledge of a zoning problem in August 2000, and this knowledge was imputed to the appellants, triggering the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.