Gregory Patrick Weedon

The appellant appealed a summary judgment award of $366,513 in damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The appellant had waived the financing condition in an agreement of purchase and sale for $1,252,500 but failed to close due to lack of financing.

The respondents subsequently sold the property for $965,000.

The motion judge found the respondents had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their damages by refusing the appellant's subsequent offer to purchase at a lower price, particularly given the appellant's prior default and lack of proof of financing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no errors in the motion judge's legal analysis or assessment of evidence and no basis for interfering with the denial of the adjournment request.

The court considered costs following summary judgment in a real estate transaction dispute.

The plaintiff was awarded $256,208.54 plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued the costs were excessive.

The court reviewed the relevant statutory and common law principles, including proportionality and indemnity, and fixed costs at $15,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Rosemont’s appeal from an order staying its application against John Faraci as an abuse of process.

The case turned on Rosemont’s failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with Cityzien Properties Limited to Mr. Faraci, which fundamentally changed the litigation landscape.

The court held that the obligation to disclose crystallized when the settlement was finalized, and that a delay of nearly two weeks was not “immediate” as required by law.

The court reaffirmed the strictness of the immediate disclosure rule and the automatic remedy of a stay for its breach, regardless of whether the settlement was ultimately enforceable.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, Benny and Joy Osajie, in a real estate transaction dispute.

The defendant, Eevine Alile, failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale, alleging misrepresentation regarding square footage, poor property condition, and the absence of a basement tenant.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on any of these grounds, dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim, and awarded damages and costs to the plaintiffs.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Victoria Adeniji, for damages arising from the defendants' failure to complete a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants claimed they were entitled to rescind the contract due to alleged material misrepresentations in the MLS listing, but the court found that any misstatements were not material and did not induce the defendants to enter the agreement.

The court held that the defendants breached the agreement and awarded damages based on the difference between the contract price and the resale price, plus carrying costs, with a set-off for the deposit.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment after the defendant, Maria Surovova, was noted in default for failing to attend examinations for discovery.

The court found that Surovova had fraudulently misrepresented herself as a mortgage broker, induced the plaintiffs to transfer $85,221.00 to her under false pretenses, and retained the funds.

The court granted default judgment, awarded punitive damages, and ordered that the judgment survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Full indemnity costs and prejudgment interest were also awarded.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages from the defendant for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction due to inability to secure financing.

The defendant admitted breach but disputed the quantum of damages and alleged the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiffs acted reasonably in mitigating damages and assessing damages based on the actual resale date.

The defendants sought an adjournment of a summary judgment motion in a real estate transaction dispute.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the defendants failed to act with reasonable diligence in obtaining non-party evidence and that the sought-after evidence from real estate agents was not relevant to the issues on the motion, particularly regarding alleged misrepresentations and mitigation.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to timetables and the need for relevance in seeking evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) after the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The defendant conceded liability but disputed damages and argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages by reselling the property and was not obligated to accept the defaulting defendant's abated offer.

Damages were awarded based on the difference in sale price and carrying costs, with the defendant's forfeited deposit set off against the total.

This is a costs endorsement following an unsuccessful motion by the applicant purchaser for a certificate of pending litigation related to a failed real estate transaction.

The respondent seller successfully defended the motion.

The court rejected the applicant's claim of partial success regarding deposits and arguments based on force majeure events.

The respondent's Rule 49 offer to settle was deemed reasonable.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, finding the requested fees and disbursements reasonable and proportionate.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages arising from a failed real estate assignment agreement.

The defendant repudiated the agreement by failing to make reasonable efforts to obtain the builder's consent, which was a true condition precedent.

The plaintiff accepted the repudiation and sought damages for lost profit based on the unit's value at the original closing date, nearly two years after the breach.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement but assessed damages at the date of the breach, not the later closing date, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate why they could not have re-entered the market to mitigate losses.

The plaintiff was awarded nominal damages of $5,000 and special damages of $1,130, with the claim for interest on the deposit denied as per the assignment agreement.

The appellant, Shoreh Forjani, appealed a summary judgment decision that awarded damages to the respondents, George Leslie Scott and Harriet Brav-Baum, for her failure to close a property purchase.

The appellant had refused to close, alleging latent defects.

The respondents subsequently sold the property for a lower price and sued for damages.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment, finding the respondents had mitigated their damages and giving no weight to the appellant's "expert" affidavits due to a lack of evidence regarding their qualifications.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that expert opinions require proper foundation regarding qualifications to be given weight, and that an adverse inference was properly drawn when the appellant obstructed questions about an expert's expertise.