David Contant

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages from the defendant for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction due to inability to secure financing.

The defendant admitted breach but disputed the quantum of damages and alleged the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiffs acted reasonably in mitigating damages and assessing damages based on the actual resale date.

The plaintiff, Clifton Blake Capital Corp., brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a $164,000 commitment fee from 10972827 Canada Inc. (109 Canada) following the non-completion of an $8.2 million loan transaction.

The plaintiff argued that 109 Canada unilaterally terminated the agreement, while the defendants claimed anticipatory breach by the plaintiff.

The court found that 109 Canada terminated the transaction and that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close.

Judgment was granted against 109 Canada for the commitment fee, adjusted for deposits.

The action against the personal and corporate guarantors was dismissed, as their guarantee was found to be conditional on the loan being advanced, which did not occur.

The defendants' counterclaim for damages related to obtaining new financing was also dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a trial where the plaintiffs were largely successful in their claim on a promissory note and in defending against most set-off claims and a counterclaim.

The plaintiffs were awarded $256,332.07 (including pre-judgment interest) and had beaten their formal Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court considered the principles of indemnity, promotion of settlement, proportionality, and reasonableness under Rule 57.

Despite the defendants' arguments for a lower award, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $100,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, applying partial indemnity before the offer and substantial indemnity after.

The defendant brought a motion under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 to overturn the election of the board of directors of the plaintiff church.

The election took place after a physical altercation broke out at the meeting, causing several members to leave for medical attention.

The court found that the defendant was entitled to challenge the election by way of a motion under s. 31(1) of the Act.

The court held that the church failed to prove the election complied with its by-laws, as there was no evidence of the total membership or the number of members present.

The motion was granted, the election was declared invalid, and a new election was ordered.

The plaintiffs sold a construction business to the defendants, with a portion of the purchase price secured by a vendor take back promissory note.

The defendants refused to pay the note, claiming set-offs for intercompany debt, retained bank balances, and a bookkeeping error that overstated accounts receivable.

The court held that the purchase price was fixed and not subject to adjustment for the intercompany debt, and that the bookkeeping error did not constitute a breach of warranty.

However, the court allowed a set-off for the retained bank balance, which the plaintiffs conceded should have been transferred on closing, reducing the amount owing on the promissory note.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of a jointly-owned property and 50% of the proceeds.

The respondent brought a cross-application seeking a constructive trust, arguing for an equitable division based on contributions since separation.

The court granted the sale, finding no oppression, and imposed a constructive trust, awarding the applicant 35% and the respondent 65% of the property's value.

This division balanced the respondent's sole mortgage payments post-separation against the applicant's continued legal interest and co-signing of mortgage renewals.

The specific method of disposition (partition or sale) and costs were deferred for further submissions.

The applicant sought a prescriptive easement over a portion of a shared driveway.

The respondents consented to an easement over the middle and back portions but disputed the "front piece." The court found the applicant failed to establish the requisite continuous or permanent use of the front piece prior to the Land Titles transfer in 1996, due to the presence of a concrete retaining wall.

Furthermore, the court determined that an easement over the front piece was not reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the dominant tenement, as the alleged use (getting in and out of cars) was merely a personal convenience.

The application for the front piece was dismissed, while the consented easement for the middle and back portions was granted.

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

The plaintiffs sought costs for a motion to strike the defendants' affidavits, which resulted in mixed success as the court instead provided directions for examinations to proceed by video conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court declined to award costs to either party for that motion, noting both sides acted in good faith in a novel situation.

The plaintiffs were awarded $300 in costs for a separate motion that the defendants had abandoned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' affidavits and motion record filed in support of a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The plaintiffs argued the affidavits should be struck because the defendants refused to attend in-person cross-examinations, citing COVID-19 health concerns.

The plaintiffs also argued the motion should be struck because it was brought by counsel retained by the former lawyer's insurer.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding the elderly defendants had a legitimate health concern justifying video conference examinations, and that counsel had standing to act on their behalf.

The applicant mortgagor defaulted on its mortgage and the respondent mortgagee issued a Notice of Sale.

The applicant brought an urgent application seeking to set aside the Notice of Sale, arguing it contained errors regarding the principal amount, property description, and was unsigned, and sought an injunction to stop the pending sale.

The court dismissed the application, finding that under a standard of commercial reasonableness, the alleged errors did not cause prejudice or confusion to the applicant, who was aware of the property and the default.

The court also declined to grant an injunction for an alleged improvident realization, noting it was not ancillary relief and would require a trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal after the defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old office manager with 12 years of service, was terminated for alleged cause, which he denied.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated without cause and awarded 24 months' salary in lieu of notice, plus vacation pay and benefits, totaling $157,645.

The court also ordered the defendant to amend the plaintiff's Record of Employment to reflect dismissal without cause and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to provide particulars for allegations in her statement of claim, specifically concerning breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The court emphasized that while oral discovery can clarify details, allegations of bad faith under Rule 25.06(8) require "full particulars" to enable the defendants to plead and to limit discovery issues.

The court also clarified that a supporting affidavit from the defendant is not strictly required when the plaintiff's allegations are so general that particulars are clearly necessary.

The motion was substantially granted, requiring the plaintiff to provide specific particulars regarding mismanagement, toxic work environment, detrimental consequences, bad faith, and reputational damage.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike portions of the Defendant's Statement of Defence in a defamation action, arguing that certain allegations regarding the Plaintiffs' organizational governance were irrelevant.

The Defendant cross-moved for a further affidavit of documents and leave to amend his Statement of Defence, asserting the allegations provided context for his defence of justification and qualified privilege.

The court granted the motions in part, striking specific paragraphs detailing the Defendant's complaints against the Plaintiffs' national office as irrelevant to the defamation claim's core issues, but allowing other amendments and requiring the Plaintiffs to provide a further affidavit of documents.

The court emphasized that while the context of conflict was relevant for reprisal allegations, the veracity of specific governance complaints was not.

The defendant moved for summary judgment based on a limitation period defense.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the pleading to add a corporate entity as a plaintiff, include unjust enrichment claims, and assert an assignment of rights.

The court found an implied contract between the corporate entity and the defendant, precluding an unjust enrichment claim.

The alleged assignment of rights from the corporate entity to the plaintiff was not effectual in law due to lack of written notice to the debtor.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim, restricted to breach of contract, was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was largely dismissed.

Following a lengthy civil trial involving multiple plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle incident, the plaintiffs’ claims against several defendants—including a transportation company, police officers, and the provincial Crown—were dismissed.

The successful defendants sought substantial costs after a 56‑day trial and extensive pre‑trial litigation.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in fixing costs rather than a strict accounting exercise.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis up to the defendants’ settlement offers and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, with adjustments made for excessive claims and unnecessary attendance of junior counsel.

The court also held the plaintiffs jointly and severally liable for the liability portion of the defendants’ costs, while allocating damages‑related costs severally among individual plaintiffs.

Requests for a Sanderson order and third‑party costs were denied.

A costs decision arising from a multi‑plaintiff bus accident action where one plaintiff settled prior to trial.

The settling plaintiff sought costs based on a proportional share of a collective liability account and individual damages account maintained for all plaintiffs.

The defendants disputed various docketed entries, including costs relating to unrelated proceedings, unsuccessful motions, and non‑taxable disbursements.

Applying the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality between the settlement value and the requested costs.

The court rejected the full amount sought and instead fixed a global costs award considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs were passengers on a Greyhound bus who were injured when another passenger, Davis, suddenly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the bus to crash.

Prior to boarding, Davis had exhibited signs of mild paranoia and had interacted with OPP officers, who concluded he was not a danger to himself or others.

The plaintiffs sued the OPP, the officers, Greyhound, and the bus driver for negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action against all defendants except Davis, finding that the police officers acted reasonably and had no legal grounds to apprehend or detain Davis under the Mental Health Act or common law.

The court also found that the bus driver and Greyhound met the high standard of care expected of a common carrier, as the sudden attack was not reasonably foreseeable and the driver's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

The court proceeded to assess the hypothetical damages for each plaintiff.

The responding parent brought a motion seeking an interim shared parenting arrangement for a young child following relocation to another city approximately 225 kilometres away.

The moving parent sought primary residence of the child with limited access for the other parent and alleged concerns about the other parent’s behaviour.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions involving custody and parenting, absent compelling evidence that a change is necessary to protect the child’s best interests.

Finding that the parties had historically shared parenting and that the relocation had not significantly altered the child’s experience with each parent, the court ordered joint custody and an alternating two‑week parenting schedule pending trial.

Requests for disclosure of child protection records were denied due to hearsay and insufficient evidence.