David J. H. Jackson

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant Frank Fiorini for alleged breaches of court orders dated October 19 and November 10, 2010, related to the disclosure and non-removal of construction equipment.

The motion was initially brought in 2010, adjourned, struck in 2011, and resurrected in 2018.

The court dismissed the motion due to the plaintiff's seven-year delay, the plaintiff's prior indication that contempt had been purged, and the failure to prove the breach beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court emphasized that contempt motions are a last resort and should not be used merely to enforce judgments when other means have failed.

An appeal concerning the interpretation of a term in an amended Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellant challenged the application judge's interpretation of a contractual provision.

The Court of Appeal applied the deferential standard of review established in Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. and found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's findings of fact or interpretation of the impugned provision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This is a costs judgment following a dispute over the face value of a vendor take-back (VTB) mortgage, which was contingent on a development application that ultimately failed.

The plaintiff (mortgagor) successfully argued that the defendant (mortgagee) acted high-handedly and abused process by initiating Power of Sale proceedings for the full face value despite the known contingency, and by raising spurious allegations.

The court found the plaintiff entitled to costs, departing from a standard mortgage cost clause due to the defendant's conduct.

The plaintiff was awarded $50,000 for fees and $8,746.82 for disbursements, with the court noting some "over-lawyering" by the plaintiff's counsel but emphasizing the defendant's inappropriate behaviour.

The applicant purchaser and respondent vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended for a townhouse development.

The agreement included a vendor take back mortgage with a clause reducing the principal amount if the number of approved units was less than the originally planned 18, subject to a $250,000 floor.

The development application faced opposition and the number of units was reduced.

The court was asked to interpret the mortgage terms.

The court found the reduction clause enforceable and not ambiguous, rejecting the vendor's argument that the entire mortgage amount was due if the original application failed.

The court held that the mortgage principal would be reduced according to the formula, subject to the $250,000 floor.