Darren Marr

The applicants, a syndicate of lenders and various construction trades, sought declarations that the respondent surety could not rescind performance and payment bonds issued for a hospital redevelopment project.

The surety had discovered alleged fraud and collusion in the procurement process and commenced a separate action for rescission.

The applicants argued they were innocent third parties whose rights under the bonds could not be defeated by the alleged fraud of the principals.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants' rights were derivative of the principals and that rescission remained a possible equitable remedy that must be determined on a full factual record at trial.

The plaintiff, WED Investments Limited, sought costs following a judgment in its favour against Showcase Woodycrest Inc., while the action against 2442459 Ontario Inc. was dismissed.

WED relied on Rule 49.10 for substantial indemnity costs due to a successful Offer to Settle.

The court found that while Rule 49.10 applied, its benefit should be limited to the success against Showcase, as the case involved two separate actions against different defendants.

The court awarded WED 60% of its claimed costs against Showcase, totaling $189,376.93, and ordered no costs between WED and 2442459 Ontario Inc.

The plaintiff developer entered into two Agreements of Purchase and Sale to acquire properties for residential redevelopment.

The vendor of the Brock Street property wrongly terminated the agreement after the plaintiff properly delivered a waiver of conditions by email.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3.2 million in damages based on the increase in the property's value.

The plaintiff's claim regarding the Hopkins Street property was dismissed because it failed to deliver a waiver by the extended deadline.

The defendants' counterclaims for damages arising from the registration of Certificates of Pending Litigation were dismissed, as the plaintiff had a reasonable claim to an interest in the land.