D. Touesnard

The applicants, purchasers of pre-construction residential units, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after the respondent vendors terminated the agreements of purchase and sale, relying on an early termination condition, and subsequently offered the units at a 25% price increase.

The respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the Tarion Warranty.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to issue a CPL under the Courts of Justice Act despite the arbitration clause.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the respondents' reliance on the early termination condition and concluding that damages might not be an adequate remedy given the unique location and advantageous pricing of the units in a rapidly rising real estate market.

The plaintiff pharmacy sued the defendant retirement residence for breach of contract, alleging the defendant failed to properly deliver a notice of non-renewal to terminate their pharmacy services agreement.

The trial was bifurcated to determine the sole issue of liability: whether the defendant's representative hand delivered the notice to the plaintiff's president on June 16, 2020.

After assessing the credibility of the conflicting witness testimony, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the notice was hand delivered.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The defendant was entirely successful on a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff Bankruptcy Trustee.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $16,605.88, while the plaintiff proposed $4,409.12.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 all-inclusive, applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the principle of fair and reasonable expectations.

The court declined to defer payment until after trial, ordering payment before any further steps are taken, but refused to order the Bankruptcy Trustee to pay the costs personally under s. 197(3) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a bankruptcy trustee.

The trustee had commenced an action regarding a trust agreement over a residential property.

The court found that the defendant did not require leave to bring the motion despite consenting to the action being set down for trial.

The court also determined that the claim was properly brought in civil court rather than bankruptcy court.

Applying the test for security for costs, the court found that the trustee had insufficient assets and failed to demonstrate impecuniosity, as it had not sought funding from creditors.

The court ordered the trustee to post $25,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiffs, private lenders, advanced mortgage funds to the defendants for the purchase of a farm and equipment, secured by a general security agreement (GSA) on the equipment.

The defendant who sold the farm and equipment later removed and sold some of the equipment after the purchasers defaulted and the plaintiffs took possession of the farm.

The plaintiffs sued the seller for conversion and the purchaser for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court found that property in the equipment passed to the purchaser on closing, giving the plaintiffs a valid GSA.

The seller was found liable for conversion and ordered to pay $35,533 in damages.

The claims against the purchaser and the seller's counterclaim and crossclaim were dismissed.