Ed Hiutin

The defendants (purchasers) brought a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff (builder/vendor) for the return of their deposit and damages following a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff had elected to affirm the Agreement of Purchase and Sale after an anticipatory repudiation by the defendants, keeping the closing date alive.

On the closing date, the defendants tendered the closing funds, but the plaintiff failed to provide a substantially completed home ready for occupancy.

The court found the plaintiff in fundamental breach of the agreement, entitling the defendants to terminate the contract.

The defendants were awarded the return of their $55,000 deposit and $25,000 in damages for the costs of borrowing the closing funds.

The defendants in multiple related actions brought motions for summary judgment against the Pichelli plaintiffs, who were investors in a real estate development project.

The plaintiffs alleged that the developers (the Vuletics), a title holder (Kegalj), and the developers' lawyers (the Adairs) engaged in fraudulent and improper conduct.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the Adair defendants, finding that the lawyers owed no duty of care to the non-client investors.

The court also granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against Kegalj, finding no relationship or duty owed to the plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the Vuletics' motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of credibility and conflicting versions of the lot purchase agreements required a trial.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs (as defendants by counterclaim) brought a cross-motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs by counterclaim.

The court granted the Langlois defendants' motion against the corporate plaintiffs, finding good reason to believe they had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion by a self-represented lawyer defendant, finding no evidence of opportunity cost to justify an award of security for costs in his favour.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion, as the counterclaim was largely equivalent to a defence to the main action.

The applicant condominium corporation sought relief from an allegedly oppressive shared facilities agreement (CRA) imposed by the declarant developer, and brought several actions for construction deficiencies and property management breaches.

The court found the CRA produced an oppressive result due to the conflicted manager's conduct and amended the agreement to allow the condominium to terminate the manager without cause.

The court also ruled on multiple summary judgment motions regarding construction deficiencies, dismissing the first action as a nullity for lack of statutory notice to owners, and granting summary judgment on various specific deficiency claims based on limitation periods and warranty coverage.

Damages were awarded for specific proven deficiencies and against the former property manager for failing to maintain insurance records.

Following an order granting the plaintiff leave to discontinue the action, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable to the defendants.

The defendants sought over $25,000 in partial indemnity costs for the relevant period.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and disallowed several amounts, including a double-counted HST charge, time spent after the service of the notice of discontinuance, work related to unsuccessful security for costs proceedings, and excessive communication charges.

Applying the principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable amount significantly lower than claimed.

After accounting for a set-off from costs previously awarded to the plaintiff on appeal, the net amount owing was reduced accordingly.

Following dismissal of an appeal from a Master's decision, the court addressed costs.

The respondent had successfully resisted the appeal and sought costs.

Considering the straightforward nature of the issue and the modest materials involved, the court found it appropriate to award a fixed amount.

Costs were awarded on a lump-sum basis payable within 90 days, with the possibility of set-off against other outstanding cost orders in the proceeding.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order appointing an arbitrator pursuant to a Complex Reciprocal Agreement.

The respondents agreed on the choice of arbitrator but argued the matters at issue were outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction and that overlapping court proceedings precluded arbitration.

The court applied the competence-competence principle, holding that challenges to an arbitrator's jurisdiction should generally be resolved by the arbitrator first, unless based solely on a question of law or requiring only superficial consideration of documentary evidence.

Finding that at least one issue (allocation of common costs) arguably fell within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, the court granted the application and appointed the arbitrator.

The applicant landlord sought leave to appeal an arbitrator's decision which found that the respondent tenant was justified in terminating its commercial lease and ceasing rent payments due to a fundamental breach by the landlord regarding a dangerous sub-ceiling.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator's failure to interpret the lease agreement to determine the allocation of repair responsibilities and failure to apply the established legal test for fundamental breach constituted errors of law.

The court set aside the arbitrator's decision and remitted the matter to a new arbitrator for a rehearing.