Paul Stewart

The moving party, assignee of the developer, sought summary judgment to enforce three debt instruments against the respondent condominium corporation.

The condominium corporation argued the instruments were oppressive due to inadequate disclosure to purchasers.

The court found the disclosure regarding the service unit mortgage and parking unit mortgage was confusing and insufficient, breaching the reasonable expectations of the purchasers.

The court reduced the principal amounts of both mortgages to reflect fair value and reasonable expectations.

The court also found a promissory note for land transfer tax was void for lack of a borrowing by-law and oppressive as it circumvented the developer's statutory obligation for first-year budget deficits.

The court awarded the condominium corporation amounts for common expense arrears, a first-year budget deficit, and reserve fund payments, and declined to appoint a receiver.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant for damages after the tenant repudiated a commercial lease with eight years remaining.

The repudiation forced the plaintiff to sell the property, as it could not afford the carrying costs without the rental income and re-letting was unfeasible.

The defendants admitted liability but argued the plaintiff suffered no damages because the property was sold at fair market value.

The court rejected this argument, finding the forced sale was not at fair market value and did not compensate the plaintiff for the lost income stream and capital appreciation.

The court accepted the plaintiff's discounted cash flow analysis to quantify damages, using the 2015 appraised fair market value to account for foreseeable lost capital appreciation, and assuming reasonable mitigation through a hypothetical investment in a REIT basket.

The plaintiff mortgagor brought an action against the defendant mortgagees for the improvident sale of a 125-acre development property under a power of sale.

The property was sold for $12.5 million.

The court found that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain the fair market value of the property, having listed it at an inordinately low price, failed to adequately market it, unreasonably restricted the field of potential buyers, and acted with undue haste.

After reviewing competing appraisal evidence, the court determined the fair market value of the property at the time of sale was $16 million.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3.5 million in damages, representing the difference between the fair market value and the sale price.