3 total
Motion for a charging order dismissed as the client was not unwilling to pay fees.
This motion concerned an application by Capo Sgro LLP, former lawyers for the plaintiff Haven Property Services Corp., for a charging order over settlement proceeds to secure unpaid legal fees and disbursements.
Haven opposed the motion, arguing that Capo Sgro LLP was not instrumental in achieving the settlement and that Haven was able and willing to pay its fees, subject to a pending assessment under the Solicitors Act.
The court found that while Capo Sgro LLP's efforts were instrumental in the settlement, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Haven was unable or unwilling to pay its outstanding legal fees.
The court emphasized that non-payment alone or commencing a fee assessment does not constitute unwillingness to pay.
The motion for a charging order was dismissed, and Haven was awarded costs.
Restrictive covenant on former golf course lands interpreted to prohibit residential development until 2041.
The applicants sought a declaration that a 2001 easement and restrictive covenant registered on title to a former golf course prohibited the respondent from developing the lands for residential use.
The respondent argued the covenant only protected storm water management access and did not prevent development.
The court applied contract interpretation principles and found the plain language of the restrictive covenant, read in context, constituted a complete prohibition on building structures on the golf course lands.
By operation of the Land Titles Act, the covenant was deemed to expire 40 years after registration, prohibiting residential development until 2041.
Summary judgment granted to vendor for $353,582.28 after purchasers failed to close real estate transaction.
The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers who failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.
The defendants admitted liability but disputed damages and mitigation.
The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the plaintiff reasonably mitigated its damages by reselling the property in a falling market.
Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $353,582.28, representing the loss of bargain and carrying costs, though the court declined to enforce a 20% contractual interest rate, finding it excessively onerous.
