Gaurika Sharma

The defendant 2602317 Ontario Inc. brought a motion to hold the defendants SAI Consulting Services Inc. and Toronto Wire & Solutions Corp. in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring them to pay specific funds received from a real estate transaction into court.

The responding defendants brought cross-motions to set aside the prior order, arguing it was impossible to comply because the specific funds had already been disbursed.

The court dismissed the cross-motions, finding the prior order was clear and the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify setting it aside.

The court found the corporate defendants in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, and ordered their directors to respond personally at the penalty phase.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion for default judgment.

The plaintiff, Ms. Tomicki, sought substantial indemnity costs against the defendant, Mr. Ryvola, after he failed to repay a loan and did not respond to the default judgment motion, thereby unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings.

The court found Mr. Ryvola's conduct warranted substantial indemnity costs and awarded the plaintiff $17,069.99, adjusting the requested legal fees and disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that the contract was frustrated and subject to force majeure because she could not transfer funds from Afghanistan due to the Taliban takeover, nor could she sell another property.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no force majeure clause in the agreement and that the doctrine of frustration did not apply because the lack of funds was not a supervening event that radically altered the contract.

The plaintiffs were awarded $280,739.28 in damages, representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs, and the deposit was ordered released to them.