Greg Weedon

The plaintiff, an elderly man in long-term care, brought an urgent motion to remove Notices of Security Interest (NOSIs) registered on his property's title by the defendants, who are alleged to be involved in a door-to-door HVAC and financing scheme.

The property was sold under mortgage enforcement proceedings and the sale could not close with the NOSIs on title.

The defendants did not respond to the motion.

The court ordered the NOSIs removed upon the plaintiff's undertaking to hold sufficient funds in trust, validated service, ordered the defendants to produce the underlying security agreements within 15 days, and appointed the plaintiff's daughter as his litigation guardian.

The applicant purchaser brought a motion for an order granting leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property after failing to close an agreement of purchase and sale due to lack of financing.

The respondent seller opposed, arguing the purchaser had no interest in the land.

The court applied the test for a CPL, considering whether there was a triable claim to an interest in land and equitable factors such as property uniqueness, calculability of damages, and potential harm.

The court found the purchaser's claim for specific performance was not supported, the property was not proven unique, and damages (deposits plus interest) were ascertainable.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed.

However, the court ordered that the total deposits paid by the purchaser, along with pre-judgment interest, be held back from any future sale proceeds of the property by the seller's solicitor and invested, pending resolution of the underlying dispute regarding the deposits.

The applicants, vendors of a property, sought a declaration that the respondent purchaser breached an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close.

The purchaser argued the contract was frustrated due to substantial property damage and sought relief from forfeiture of her $72,500 deposit.

The court found that the purchaser breached the agreement, that there was no frustration of contract, and that the purchaser failed to act in good faith.

The vendors were entitled to the deposit, and the purchaser was not granted relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was not disproportionate and forfeiture was not unconscionable given the parties' sophistication and the purchaser's conduct.

The applicant vendors sought a declaration that the respondent purchaser breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property and an order for the release of the $72,500 deposit.

The purchaser failed to close the transaction, alleging that water damage in the garage and basement frustrated the contract and rendered the property uninsurable and unable to be financed.

The court found that the purchaser breached the agreement, as there was insufficient evidence of substantial damage to justify frustration of the contract.

The court also denied the purchaser's request for relief from forfeiture, finding that the deposit was not disproportionate, forfeiture was not unconscionable, and the purchaser had acted in bad faith by using the alleged damage as a pretext to avoid closing after failing to secure favorable financing extensions.