Glenn Richard Solomon

The appellants, purchasers of a condominium unit, appealed the dismissal of their claim for damages arising from the vendor's breach of an agreement of purchase and sale and their request for relief from forfeiture of their deposit.

The vendor repeatedly extended the occupancy date, which the trial judge found constituted a breach.

However, the trial judge also found that the purchasers had affirmed the agreement by continuing to press for performance and denied relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on repudiation and affirmation, concluding that the purchasers' conduct was consistent with treating the agreement as subsisting.

The Court also affirmed the trial judge's refusal to grant relief from forfeiture, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the remedy and the vendor's incurred expenses.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in principle in assessing costs by not adequately considering the vendor's net profit from the resale of the unit.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on the main issues but granted leave to appeal the costs award, vacating the original costs order and directing each party to bear their own costs for both the trial and the appeal.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision.

The successful Plaintiff sought costs of $43,566.14, including disbursements for an expert report on Dutch law.

The Defendant challenged the quantum, arguing the issue was comparatively narrow and suggesting half the amount.

The court, applying principles of proportionality, found the claimed amount excessive and fixed the Plaintiff's costs at $30,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff, AAA Entertainment B.V., moved for summary judgment to enforce a foreign judgment from the Amsterdam District Court against the defendant, Cinemavault Releasing International Inc. While partial summary judgment was granted for the principal amount, the defendant contested the enforcement of a court-imposed penalty for delayed compliance, arguing improper service and public policy contravention.

The court found proper service under Dutch law and the Hague Convention and determined that the penalty, being a coercive measure to ensure compliance rather than a penal provision, was not contrary to Ontario public policy and was therefore enforceable.

The appellants challenged the legality of the Federal Child Support Guidelines through judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court held that provincial superior courts can address the validity of the Guidelines when necessary in proceedings properly before them, and that the Federal Court reasonably exercised its discretion to decline judicial review because that route was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons cautioning against treating the case as a definitive ruling on exclusive federal jurisdiction to invalidate all federal regulations on administrative grounds.

Competing applications were brought under s. 380 of the Municipal Act for payment out of surplus funds paid into court following a municipal tax sale.

A second mortgagee sought payment of the funds based on priority of encumbrances, while subsequent encumbrancers alleged improper dealings with the property and inadequate accounting during prior mortgage enforcement.

The court held that speculative allegations regarding earlier mortgage transactions and tax sale circumstances could not be adjudicated within the limited scope of a s. 380 application.

Finding that the mortgage debt owed to the second mortgagee exceeded the funds in court and that no proof supported the competing claims, the court ordered payment out of the funds to the second mortgagee according to legal priority.

The Court substantially dismissed the appeals and held Alberta’s privacy legislation unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression in the labour-relations context.

The statutory scheme failed to provide a mechanism to balance expressive activities during lawful picketing against privacy interests.

The Court declared the statute invalid, suspended the declaration for 12 months, quashed the adjudicator’s order, and awarded costs to the union.

Multiple defendants brought motions seeking security for costs against a plaintiff who was ordinarily resident outside Ontario in two related civil actions.

The plaintiff argued impecuniosity and contended that an order for security would effectively drive him from the litigation.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold required to establish impecuniosity because he provided outdated financial disclosure and did not produce complete, current documentation regarding income, assets, liabilities, and borrowing capacity.

Finding the requested security amounts reasonable given the anticipated complexity and duration of the litigation, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in both actions, failing which the proceedings would be stayed.