Gillian Gondosch

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a summary judgment order in a real estate dispute.

The appellants (purchasers) argued that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate for meaningful appellate review, specifically regarding the breach of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), the improvidence of the subsequent sale, and the enforceability of a 20% contractual pre-judgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the motion judge's reasons were insufficient, as they merely summarized positions and stated conclusions without providing insight into the reasoning or factual findings.

The moving party, an estate trustee, brought a motion to add her sister as a respondent to two consolidated applications: an application to pass accounts and an application for the removal of the estate trustee.

The sister and her daughter opposed the joinder.

The court found that the sister was an interested party who had demanded an accounting and was a possible beneficiary of the estate.

Applying Rules 5.03 and 9.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that the sister was a necessary party whose rights could be affected by the outcome.

The motion was granted, and the sister was ordered to be added as a party to both applications.

The plaintiffs, unpaid contractors on a home building project, brought a motion in two related actions for four orders: to transfer one action from Toronto to Newmarket, to amend their statements of claim to add defendants and allege fraudulent conveyances, to register certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) on the impugned properties, and for summary judgment against the corporate builder.

The court granted the venue transfer and summary judgment on consent.

The court also granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

However, the court dismissed the motion for CPLs, concluding that the plaintiffs' evidence regarding the fair market value of the properties was methodologically flawed and failed to establish a prima facie case of intent to defeat creditors.

The defendant moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claimed he transferred the property to the defendant as a bare trustee for estate planning purposes and that the transaction was undocumented.

However, the defendant produced a formal Agreement of Purchase and Sale, mortgage documents, and proof of payment showing she purchased the property for $248,000.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, as required by Rule 39.01(6), and ordered the CPL discharged.