Gregory Patrick Weedon

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant builder for breach of contract after the defendant unilaterally terminated agreements of purchase and sale for two new homes.

The defendant relied on an early termination condition in Schedule 'I' regarding the registration of a plan of subdivision.

The court found that Schedule 'I' was inconsistent with the mandatory Tarion Addendum and was therefore null and void.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant breached the contracts and resold the properties at a profit, and awarded the plaintiffs $440,200 in damages based on the difference between the contract prices and the actual resale prices on the closing dates.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment arising from the defendant's breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property in Mississauga.

The purchase price was $8,385,000 and the defendant failed to close the transaction after multiple extensions.

The parties agreed that carrying cost damages were $550,000, leaving only the loss of the benefit of the bargain in dispute.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not accepting a $7 million offer with a vendor takeback mortgage and by initially listing the property at the original price in a declining market, but led no expert or appraisal evidence despite being given an adjournment to do so.

The court found the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate by relisting the property within two weeks and reducing the price on several occasions, and granted summary judgment for $1,835,000 in loss of bargain damages plus $550,000 in carrying costs.

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 moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $4,500 to the responding parties.

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 seeking the return of an assignment fee paid in an aborted real estate transaction.

The original builder went bankrupt, and the purchase agreement was terminated by court order.

The plaintiff argued that the assignment agreement's default provision (Article 17) and a specific refund clause in Schedule A entitled her to the fee's return.

The defendant contended the contract was ambiguous, the evidentiary record incomplete, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by rejecting a new offer from a stalking horse purchaser.

The court found the case suitable for summary judgment, interpreting the contract to mandate the refund of the assignment fee upon the builder's default, and dismissed the defendant's arguments.

Rosemont brought an application against Cityzien and Mr. Faraci regarding an abortive real estate transaction and property management dispute.

Rosemont and Cityzien reached a partial settlement, which was negotiated by a Cityzien director without the required unanimous shareholder approval.

Rosemont moved to enforce the settlement, while Mr. Faraci moved to permanently stay the application against him, arguing that the failure to promptly disclose the settlement—which changed the litigation landscape by aligning Rosemont and Cityzien against him—constituted an abuse of process.

The court refused to enforce the settlement, finding it unauthorized and improvident, and granted the stay against Mr. Faraci, holding that the delayed disclosure of the settlement was an abuse of process.

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, Janet Bowie, sought summary judgment against the defendants, Ramesh Bhandari and Sudha Dhungana, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendants admitted liability and damages but argued against summary judgment due to ongoing third- and fourth-party claims and sought a stay of execution.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding no genuine issue for trial in the main action and that it was severable from the third-party claims.

The court also denied the defendants' request for a stay of execution, citing lack of connection between the claims, no risk of inconsistent findings, and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for injunctive relief to prevent the defendant, who is incapable of instructing counsel and whose financial matters are managed by her sons as powers of attorney, from dissipating her assets and becoming unable to satisfy a potential judgment for failing to close a real estate purchase.

The court found a real concern regarding the dissipation of assets and granted the injunction, ordering the net sale proceeds of the defendant's properties to be paid into court.

The court also appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the defendant due to a potential conflict of interest with her sons.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages after the defendant failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The property was originally sold for $1,450,000 but, following the breach, was resold for $1,120,000.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by including an 'as is' clause in the second listing.

The court rejected the defendant's expert evidence regarding the property's value and found the plaintiffs acted reasonably in mitigating their damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $250,442.08, representing the difference in sale price plus carrying costs and legal fees.