Toivo Heinsaar

The plaintiff sued its former lawyer's estate and professional corporation for negligence and breach of contract after the lawyer allowed a construction lien to expire by failing to set the action down for trial within two years.

The defendants conceded the breach of the standard of care but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff failed to mitigate by not enforcing a related judgment and that the property lacked sufficient equity.

The court found the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in relying on the lawyer's advice that the lien was valid.

Assessing the complex evidence on the contaminated property's retrospective value, the court determined there was equity in the property and fixed damages at $472,000.

The plaintiffs' home was severely damaged by a fire while undergoing renovations.

The plaintiffs alleged the fire was caused by the spontaneous combustion of stain-soaked rags left by the defendant painting subcontractor, and sought to hold the general contractor vicariously liable.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the cause of the fire on a balance of probabilities, accepting the painter's evidence that he did not leave rags in the home and noting that electrical arcing could not be ruled out as a cause.

The court declined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants for failing to call another fire investigator.

The action was dismissed, though damages were assessed at $1,348,939.91 in the alternative.

The plaintiff, a real estate developer, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser who failed to close a real estate transaction.

After the defendant failed to file responding materials as ordered, the court struck the statement of defence and treated the matter as an in-writing motion for default judgment.

The court found the plaintiff proved its claim for breach of contract and awarded damages for the loss of the bargain and consequential carrying costs.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendants raised defenses of frustration due to a market drop, delay, misrepresentation, and bribery, all of which were rejected by the court.

The court awarded damages for loss of bargain based on the difference between the contract price and the appraised value.

However, the court refused to enforce a 20% interest rate clause in the standard form agreement, finding it to be a surprisingly onerous term that was not drawn to the defendants' attention.