David Windrim

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breaching an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new build home.

The purchaser failed to close the transaction, alleging confusion and forgery regarding documents amending the purchase price to include selected upgrades.

The court found a valid and binding contract existed, which the purchaser breached.

The court also found the vendor reasonably mitigated its damages by reselling the property, and awarded damages to the vendor for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, net of the purchaser's forfeited deposit.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claim arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement to purchase their waterfront property.

The property was re-sold at a lower price, and the plaintiffs sought damages for the price differential and increased commission costs.

The defendants disputed the damages and argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their losses.

The court determined the proper assessment date for damages was the date of the new agreement of purchase and sale (APS), and found the re-sale price to be prima facie evidence of market value.

The court concluded that the defendants failed to meet their onus to prove the plaintiffs did not take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $358,900.00, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a long-term shift leader at a City of Toronto homeless shelter, was terminated for cause following allegations that he stole maintenance fees from vulnerable clients and issued fraudulent receipts.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, relied on false assumptions, and failed to prove theft or fraud on a balance of probabilities.

While the plaintiff erred in issuing two receipts to calm a client in crisis, this misconduct did not warrant dismissal.

The court awarded 18 months' reasonable notice, plus $65,000 in Wallace/Keays damages for the employer's unfair, insensitive, and bad faith conduct during the dismissal process, which caused the plaintiff mental distress and prolonged financial loss.