Emery

The plaintiff purchaser sued the defendant vendors for specific performance or damages after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The transaction aborted because a third party, a previous prospective purchaser, registered a certificate of pending litigation against the property days before closing.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, relying on the annulment clause in the agreement of purchase and sale.

The court granted the motion, finding the defendants acted reasonably and in good faith, and were unable to remove the certificate of pending litigation by the closing date, meaning the agreement came to an end by its own terms.

The applicant father brought a motion to permit questioning of the respondent mother in a family law proceeding involving custody of their child.

The mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody and other relief.

The court reviewed the divergent case law on whether questioning should be permitted under Family Law Rule 20(5).

Finding that questioning is a valuable tool to test contradictory affidavit evidence and narrow issues, the court granted the motion, allowing each party to question the other for up to two hours, subject to specific subject matter limitations.

The court also granted parts of the mother's cross-motion on consent, including orders for child care expenses and financial disclosure, and adjourned the balance of her motion.

The respondent father brought a motion for temporary orders regarding custody, access, child support, and financial issues including carrying costs of the matrimonial home and an equalization payment.

The court ordered temporary joint custody with the children's primary residence remaining with the father, and granted the mother generous access.

The mother was ordered to pay interim child support and a proportionate share of Section 7 expenses.

The financial claims regarding the matrimonial home and equalization were adjourned to trial as they presented genuine issues requiring adjudication on proper evidence.

The respondent mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim support, and a temporary parenting order.

The parties continued to reside together post-separation, creating a highly acrimonious and stressful environment for the children.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding it in the children's best interests to remain in their established neighborhood with their primary caregiver.

The court also ordered shared parenting, interim support of $2,000 per month plus household expenses, and comprehensive financial disclosure from the father.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce previous orders requiring the defendants to answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs initially abandoned a request for a contempt finding but later sought to resurrect it based on new case law.

The court refused to allow the contempt motion to proceed, finding it unfair to the defendants, and noted that contempt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt regardless.

However, the court found the defendant's answers to undertakings were insufficient 'window dressing' and issued a 'last chance' order compelling proper answers and further attendance for discovery, warning that future non-compliance could result in pleadings being struck.

The applicant franchisor commenced an application in Toronto seeking injunctive relief against the respondent franchisees for alleged breaches of a restrictive covenant in Mississauga.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 13.1.02 to transfer the application to Brampton.

The court weighed the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) and found that the events, damages, subject matter, and convenience of parties and witnesses all favoured Brampton.

The motion to transfer venue was granted, subject to the approval of the Regional Senior Justices.