Fraser Dickson

The applicant sought to enforce an arbitral award requiring the respondent to sell shares to the applicant.

A third-party judgment creditor of the respondent opposed the application, arguing her writ of seizure and sale gave her a prior interest in the shares.

The court held that under section 50(3) of the Arbitration Act, enforcement is mandatory unless specific exceptions apply.

Furthermore, applying equitable principles, the respondent had no remaining interest in the shares to which the writ could attach once the applicant's contractual right to acquire them arose.

The arbitral award was enforced.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff developer regarding a defaulted agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court noted the defendants pursued a defence and counterclaim identical to one recently dismissed by the Court of Appeal in a related case.

Despite this, the plaintiff only sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $49,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff vendor brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant purchasers for failing to close on a luxury home.

The defendants argued they did not understand the agreement due to a language barrier and were misled about environmental issues on the property.

The court rejected these defenses, finding the defendants were experienced buyers who had a bilingual real estate agent and declined legal advice.

The court granted judgment for the plaintiff for the loss on resale and proven carrying costs, totaling $584,306.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment granted against him for defamatory comments he posted online under a pseudonym.

The plaintiffs had obtained a Norwich order to identify him and served him via email.

The defendant admitted to receiving the emails but claimed he thought they were a scam and ignored them until he realized the plaintiffs had discovered his actual identity.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant made a conscious decision not to participate in the proceedings, failed to move promptly, and lacked a compelling defence on the merits.

The court emphasized that allowing the defendant to reopen the case after forcing the plaintiffs to expend significant resources to unearth his identity would be an abuse of process.