Ben Lansink

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claim arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement to purchase their waterfront property.

The property was re-sold at a lower price, and the plaintiffs sought damages for the price differential and increased commission costs.

The defendants disputed the damages and argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their losses.

The court determined the proper assessment date for damages was the date of the new agreement of purchase and sale (APS), and found the re-sale price to be prima facie evidence of market value.

The court concluded that the defendants failed to meet their onus to prove the plaintiffs did not take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $358,900.00, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim arising from a real estate appraisal.

The plaintiff had relied on the appraisal to advance a second mortgage, but later discovered the property was worth significantly less.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as he knew or ought to have known he had suffered a loss more than two years before commencing the action.

The appellants appealed a trial decision fixing the fair value of the respondents' shares in a hotel business following the exercise of dissent rights under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's valuation of the hotel itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the cross-appeal, finding no error in the hotel valuation.

However, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the only expert evidence on share valuation and substituting her own unsupported asset-based calculation.

The Court varied the judgment to impose the en bloc share value of $1,240,500 established by the appellants' expert.

Neighbouring landowners brought actions seeking damages and injunctive relief arising from a proposed wind turbine development, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability based on anticipated noise, health impacts, and property value loss.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims on the basis that the project had not yet received regulatory approval and had not been constructed.

The court held that the claims were premature because the alleged harms were speculative and no actionable tort had yet occurred.

Pure economic loss arising from public concern about a proposed development was not compensable absent proof of tortious conduct.

The plaintiffs also failed to meet the threshold for a quia timet injunction because there was no high probability that the alleged harms would occur given the ongoing regulatory approval process.