Dheeraj Bhatia

Following a successful motion by the plaintiffs to remove the defendants' counsel for a conflict of interest, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs against the removed counsel personally under Rule 57.07, finding it was a matter between the counsel and his former clients.

However, the court found that the plaintiffs' offer to settle was a valid Rule 49 offer that they had beaten, entitling them to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $13,500, payable by the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendants' counsel of record, arguing that the lawyer was a necessary witness in the underlying estate litigation.

The lawyer had previously acted for the defendants in registering a section 71 notice against the deceased mother's property and in drafting a subsequent Power of Attorney and Will, all of which were central to the dispute over fiduciary duties.

The court applied the Essa factors and concluded that the lawyer was a material witness whose evidence would be necessary to explain the rationale behind the impugned transactions.

The court found that allowing the lawyer to act as counsel would create an irretrievable conflict between his obligations to the court and his clients.

The motion was granted and the lawyer was removed from the record.

The appellant sought a review of a single judge's order refusing to stay a case management judge's order pending appeal and refusing to stay other proceedings.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's request for review, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the stay principles, particularly regarding the lack of a serious issue given the case management judge's lack of jurisdiction to grant criminal declarations in a civil action.

The Court also granted the respondents' motion to quash the appeal, confirming that the case management judge's order was interlocutory and thus appealable to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment decision finding he unjustifiably repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The purchaser argued the vendors failed to provide a survey complying with the agreement, rendering it null and void.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the survey was not essential to the transaction or the purchaser's ability to close, and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle and the plaintiff's allegations of fraud.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the offer to settle was close to an offer to capitulate and the plaintiff's position was not entirely spurious.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,567.10.

The sellers brought a motion for summary judgment after the buyer failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The buyer argued she was entitled to terminate the agreement because the lot dimensions were materially misstated and the sellers failed to provide a survey.

The court found that the minor discrepancy in lot size due to a curved street was not a material misrepresentation and that a digital copy of the survey had been provided.

The court granted summary judgment to the sellers, awarding damages for the difference in the resale price and associated mortgage penalties.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for less than the judgment amount.

The court awarded elevated costs of $80,000 to the plaintiffs, citing the defendant's inappropriate conduct, which included making unfounded allegations of fraud and deceit against the plaintiffs' counsel.

The plaintiffs, Paul J. Hannivan and Pamela J. Hannivan, sued the defendant, Muhammad Wasi, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after Wasi repudiated the deal, alleging the Hannivans failed to provide a proper survey.

The Hannivans moved for summary judgment on their claim for damages and on Wasi's counterclaim for the return of his deposit.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the Hannivans, finding that the survey issue was not essential to the transaction and did not entitle Wasi to repudiate the agreement.

The defendants successfully defended motions for summary judgment brought by the plaintiffs and a co-defendant concerning an aborted real estate transaction.

In determining costs, the court criticized the defendants' disorganized, inefficient, and unnecessarily lengthy approach to the motions, which included filing duplicative materials and excessive authorities.

The defendants sought over $108,000 on a full indemnity basis, which the court found astonishing and unsupported by dockets or settlement offers.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $20,000 all-inclusive, payable $14,000 by the plaintiffs and $6,000 by the co-defendant.

The appellant real estate agent appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $4,920 for breaching an agreement to rebate 1% of his commission to the respondent purchaser.

The appellant argued he signed the agreement under duress and undue influence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings, which supported the conclusion that the appellant had choices and was not under duress.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants, who had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' home unconditionally, failed to close the transaction, alleging they were induced by a misrepresentation regarding the lot size.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding there was no misrepresentation and that the defendants simply regretted their purchase after a downturn in the real estate market.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for damages representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The plaintiffs (sellers) and defendants by counterclaim (real estate agents) brought motions for summary judgment regarding an aborted real estate transaction.

The buyers had refused to close after discovering the lot depth was 23% smaller than advertised, claiming they intended to demolish the house and build a larger one.

The sellers argued this intention was fabricated and the mistake did not go to the root of the contract.

The court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, finding that assessing the credibility of the buyer's stated intention required a trial.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in virtually all of her conclusions.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the appeal grounds.

The court upheld the application judge's findings that the respondent had standing to sue, that the appellant was required to pay the second deposit, that the respondent did not breach the agreement by failing to provide the original survey and clear title, that the respondent's failure to discharge an existing mortgage before the appellant's demand letter did not constitute a breach, and that the appellant's letter constituted anticipatory breach which the respondent properly terminated.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendants (vendors) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's (purchaser's) claim for the return of a $150,000 deposit and to grant their counterclaim for damages of $900,000 following an abortive real estate transaction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary record was inadequate and that there were numerous genuine issues requiring a trial, including alleged physical defects in the property and whether an oral agreement to reduce the purchase price was reached.

However, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Rule 20.05 to specify certain material facts not in dispute, such as the original purchase price being $2,250,000.

The plaintiff, Yaqiong Wang, sought to terminate an agreement to purchase a new-build house from the defendant, Tribute (Grandview) Ltd., after the housing market dropped.

Wang sued for the return of her deposit, while Tribute counterclaimed for specific performance, later amending to seek damages for breach of contract.

Tribute brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found the agreement valid, rejected Wang's claims of a subsequent settlement, and determined that Tribute had not failed to mitigate damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of Tribute, ordering Wang to pay damages for the difference between the original purchase price and the current listing price, less the deposit already paid.

The applicant (seller) sought declarations that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) was binding, that the respondent (buyer) breached it by failing to pay a second deposit and through anticipatory repudiation, and sought damages and forfeiture of the initial deposit.

The buyer argued lack of standing, multiplicity of proceedings, and seller's breaches (survey, mortgage discharge).

The court found the applicant had standing, dismissed the multiplicity argument, and concluded the buyer breached the APS through non-payment of deposit and anticipatory repudiation.

The initial deposit was forfeited to the seller, and the issue of quantifying further damages was ordered to proceed to trial and be consolidated with a related action.

The application against the brokerage was dismissed.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for partial summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant purchaser had demanded the return of his $60,000 deposit, alleging the vendor misrepresented the lot size based on an MPAC profile.

The vendor provided a registered survey confirming the lot size matched the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and accepted the purchaser's demand as an anticipatory breach.

The court found the lot size was correctly stated, the purchaser's conduct constituted an anticipatory breach, and ordered the $60,000 deposit forfeited to the vendor.

The plaintiff brought an action regarding a failed real estate transaction against the sellers, the real estate agents, the brokerage, and the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO).

RECO moved to dismiss the action against it, arguing it owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff.

The realtor defendants moved to strike several paragraphs of the Statement of Claim for improperly pleading legal argument.

The court granted both motions, dismissing the action against RECO and striking the argumentative paragraphs with leave to amend, awarding $11,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a commercial property.

The vendor attempted to repudiate the APS, alleging various formal defects, lack of authority of its own signatory, and relying on an annulment clause to refuse to discharge a mortgage and construction lien.

The court found the APS valid, applying the indoor management rule to bind the vendor to its director's signature.

The court held the encumbrances were matters of conveyance, not title, and the vendor acted in bad faith.

Finding the property unique and damages inadequate, the court granted specific performance.