G. Weedon

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 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.

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 plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to re-attend an examination for discovery to answer questions regarding a tape recording of a conversation and its translation.

The defendant refused to answer, claiming privilege and arguing the translation was inadmissible.

The Master granted the motion, finding insufficient evidence of privilege to bar all questions and noting that admissibility is a matter for the trial judge.

The defendant was ordered to re-attend and answer the refused questions, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.