2 total
The court dismissed a summary judgment motion in a solicitor negligence claim due to credibility issues and conflicting expert evidence.
The plaintiffs, J.M.L. Holding Corporation and Gary Muchula, sought summary judgment against their former real estate solicitor, David Ryan, alleging professional negligence.
They claimed Mr. Ryan's conduct led to the erroneous sale of a waterfront property they did not intend to sell, seeking $550,000 in damages.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the case presented genuine issues requiring a trial, including significant credibility and reliability issues between the parties, conflicting expert opinions on the standard of care and damages, and an incomplete evidentiary record, particularly regarding the buyer's perspective and the plaintiffs' intentions for the property.
Summary judgment granted to vendors for price differential after purchasers breached real estate agreement.
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.
