Darwin E. Harasym

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from the Toronto Region to the Southwest Region (Windsor).

The action arose from a failed real estate transaction for a property located in Windsor.

The plaintiff, who resides in Toronto, commenced the action in Toronto seeking specific performance or damages.

Applying the holistic approach under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the plaintiff's choice of venue was reasonable and the defendant failed to establish that Windsor would be a significantly better venue.

The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant vendor attempted to unilaterally terminate the agreement and failed to close the transaction, arguing that the closing date fell on a holiday and no agreement was reached for a new date.

The court found that the defendant committed an anticipatory breach and that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to close on the next business day.

The court granted summary judgment and ordered specific performance, finding the property was uniquely suited to the plaintiffs and damages would be inadequate.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision refusing to appoint him as the substitute decision-maker for his mother regarding her admission to a care facility.

The Board had found the appellant did not meet the criteria under s. 33(6) of the Health Care Consent Act, relying on the 'best interests' factors in s. 42(2).

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by misapplying the statutory test, improperly discounting the mother's previously expressed wishes to be cared for by family, and misinterpreting the definition of 'available'.

The Court quashed the Board's decision and appointed the appellant as his mother's representative.