Dennis Geoffrey Crawford

Purchasers sought return of a $150,000 deposit on a failed real estate transaction for a property in Kitchener, Ontario.

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale was dated July 22, 2024, with a purchase price of $2,840,000 and closing date of August 26, 2024.

The sale did not close.

The purchasers raised two grounds for return of the deposit: (1) the vendor's spouse did not provide the required matrimonial consent under the Family Law Act, and (2) a writ of execution against the vendor was not removed from title.

The court found both grounds valid and ordered return of the deposit with interest and costs.

This is a decision on costs following a judgment in which both parties received monetary awards, but the net result favoured College Grain Inc. The court considered the parties’ offers to settle, the proportionality of costs, and the policy behind the Simplified Rules.

Ultimately, the court awarded College Grain Inc. $50,000 plus HST for fees and $35,886.52 for disbursements, for a total of $92,386.52, to be paid by Wilhelm Concrete.

This decision concerns a dispute between Wilhelm Concrete and College Grain Inc. (and Jay Shackelton) regarding the construction of concrete silos.

Wilhelm Concrete sought payment for unpaid invoices, while College Grain counterclaimed for damages due to alleged construction deficiencies causing water infiltration in two silos.

The court found that there were construction deficiencies in Silos 2 and 4, resulting in water infiltration, and awarded damages to College Grain for repairs and increased labour costs.

The court also determined the amount owing to Wilhelm Concrete for unpaid invoices, resolved the issue of pre-judgment interest, and found that Jay Shackelton was not personally liable.

The court provided a detailed analysis of the limitation period and the appropriate means test under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Steve Konarski from a judgment holding him liable for conversion and detinue after he took and stripped a vintage Corvette belonging to the Kew estate.

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to award damages on a restoration basis, rather than market value at the date of conversion, due to the unique and sentimental value of the vehicle.

The court also upheld aggravated damages for the estate’s emotional harm and rejected arguments that the damages were disproportionate or contrary to public policy.

This endorsement determines the costs of a previous motion where Built By Engineers Construction Inc. (BBE) successfully defended against Coronation Medical Plaza Inc.'s (Coronation) motion to discharge a construction lien.

BBE sought partial indemnity costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario.

The court found a fair and reasonable award of costs to be $22,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by Coronation to BBE.

Coronation Medical Plaza Inc. brought a motion under s. 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a construction lien registered by Built By Engineers Construction Inc., arguing the lien was not registered in time.

The court determined that the former Construction Lien Act applied as the contract was entered into before July 1, 2018.

The court found that there were significant factual disputes, particularly regarding whether certain work was removed from the contract scope, the reason for delayed invoicing, and whether later work related to defects or separate contracts.

The court declined to exercise enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20, as these are not available on a s. 47 motion, and found that the disputed issues required credibility assessments best made at trial.

Consequently, the motion to discharge the lien was dismissed due to the existence of triable issues regarding the lien's timeliness.

This case involved an application by Milijana Cvetkovic claiming 100% beneficial ownership of two properties, 192 and 194 Wentworth Avenue, Kitchener, despite Patrick Perrier being registered as a 50% co-owner.

Cvetkovic argued Perrier held his interest in trust for her, asserting a gratuitous transfer.

Perrier contended he was a 50% beneficial owner, having provided consideration by co-signing the mortgage and making payments.

The court dismissed Cvetkovic's application, finding that the transfer was not gratuitous, as both parties jointly borrowed funds, paid the sister's interest, and received the transferred title.

Perrier was granted leave to proceed with the partition and sale of the property.

An employee who began working for a predecessor company in 1995 with an arrangement to work from home three days per week was informed in January 2017 that she could no longer work from home effective March 1, 2017.

The employee took the position that she had been constructively dismissed.

The motion judge found constructive dismissal based on two grounds: the breach of an essential term regarding work-from-home arrangements and the arbitrary setting of the employee's fourth quarter 2016 bonus.

The motion judge awarded 20.5 months of salary (less a 10% contingency), compensation for the underpaid bonus, and lost benefits.

The employer appealed; the employee cross-appealed regarding bonus entitlements during the notice period.

The appellant appealed from a trial judgment awarding the respondent US$192,000 in compensatory damages plus pre-judgment interest, $25,000 in punitive damages, and $85,000 in costs in a civil fraud case.

The trial judge found that the appellant fraudulently obtained US$200,000 from the respondent, a vulnerable widow, by misrepresenting that the funds would not be traded and then investing them in call options through his personal accounts, resulting in total loss.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the credibility findings were supported by the record, and the punitive damages award was appropriate given the appellant's highly reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiff, a vulnerable widow with limited financial knowledge, sued the defendant for civil fraud after losing $250,000 USD of her life insurance proceeds in speculative options trading through the defendant's account.

The defendant, a computer-literate individual with investment knowledge, had promised the plaintiff's dying husband he would look after her and her children.

The court found the defendant committed civil fraud by taking advantage of the plaintiff's vulnerability and making reckless trades, despite his claims that the plaintiff directed the trades.

The court awarded compensatory damages of $192,000 USD and punitive damages of $25,000 CAD.

A commercial tenant sought relief from forfeiture after the landlord terminated the lease and changed the locks due to rent arrears exceeding $44,000.

The tenant argued it withheld base rent because it expected a credit for overpaid additional rent and had not received an accounting.

The court held that the lease permitted immediate re-entry for non‑payment and that the tenant was a serial defaulter with significant arrears.

Relief from forfeiture is discretionary and only granted where forfeiture would be inequitable or unjust.

The court found nothing inequitable in allowing the landlord to enforce its contractual rights and dismissed the application.