Hans P. Engell

The court granted judgment in favour of Madison Homes Cornell Rouge Limited for losses arising from the defendants' failure to close a real estate transaction.

The court dismissed the counterclaim and third-party claim, finding no actionable misrepresentation, duress, or unconscionability in the sales process.

The court also found no fiduciary duty owed by the third party, Edward Wong, to the defendants.

Damages were awarded for the difference between the contract price and resale price, plus related expenses.

The Plaintiffs, Hassan Siddiqui and Sara Al-Ahmar, sought summary judgment against real estate agents and their agencies (Gyanesh Paliwal, Re-Max Realty Specialists Inc., Sanjay Bhayana, and World Class Realty Point) to recover commissions and a premium paid in an assignment of a pre-construction home purchase.

The underlying purchase agreement was not completed by the builder, who returned the deposit but not the premium or commissions.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled with the original assignor, Haarikka Sivanarayan.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding no contractual basis for recovery from the real estate agents as the Plaintiffs did not directly pay the commissions, and the assignor was responsible for them.

Furthermore, the court found no unjust enrichment as there was no direct deprivation of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the agents' enrichment.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendants misrepresented the location of a property they purchased and sought damages.

The court found that the defendant Yu Si, a real estate agent, misrepresented the property's location, leading the plaintiffs to believe it was at a different intersection than its actual site.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the plaintiffs' fault or market downturn as the reason for withdrawal.

The plaintiffs were awarded the return of their $120,000 down payment plus prejudgment interest and $30,000 in costs, but their claim for lost profit was denied as they chose to withdraw from the agreement.

The plaintiffs, successful in an action for water and mould damage, sought costs against the non-settling realtor defendants, Suzanne Martineau and Re/Max Hallmark Realty Limited, who were found 70% liable for damages totaling $450,215.35.

The plaintiffs requested substantial indemnity costs, arguing they had beaten their offers to settle.

However, the court found that the plaintiffs had revoked their formal Rule 49 offers prior to trial, precluding an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, calculated at 70% of the plaintiffs' fees and disbursements, totaling $144,679.55, subject to a credit for amounts received from other settling defendants via Pierringer Agreements.

Further submissions were required to determine the exact credit amount.

The plaintiffs, Aden and Shirley Bowman, purchased a home that was later discovered to have severe undisclosed water and mould damage.

They brought an action against the vendors (Alma and Shelley Emond), their home inspector (Paul Studholme), and their real estate agent (Suzanne Martineau) and brokerage (Re/Max Hallmark Realty Limited).

The court found the real estate agent negligent for failing to provide and review the Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) and for not disclosing known ongoing roof leaks.

The vendors were also found liable for concealing serious and ongoing leakage.

The home inspector was found not liable.

Liability was apportioned 70% to Martineau/Re/Max and 30% to the Emonds.

Damages were awarded based on the cost to repair the property, including consequential damages from foundation heaving, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The plaintiffs, Suzanne and Joyce Powell, purchased a house that subsequently revealed significant water leakage and mould issues.

They sued the previous owner, Tadeusz Lojko (who settled), and their real estate agent, Barbara Kirby, and her brokerage, Royal Lepage Real Estate Services Ltd., for negligence and breach of professional duties.

The court found that the agent failed to adequately advise the plaintiffs regarding the risks of not obtaining an independent home inspection or reviewing the full seller-provided report, especially given the plaintiffs' financial vulnerability and the summary report's indications of potential issues.

However, the plaintiffs were also found partially responsible due to Suzanne Powell's strong determination to purchase the property.

The court apportioned liability: 25% to the agent and brokerage, 25% to the plaintiffs for their own loss, and the remaining 50% to the seller (Lojko) as per the Pieringer Agreement.

Damages for repairs and lost rent were assessed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendant, Tanya Lemcke, on the grounds that the plaintiffs' action for damages was prescribed by the statutory limitation period.

The defendant claimed partial indemnity costs, which the plaintiffs opposed, raising concerns about the amount, the timing of the summary judgment motion, and costs already received.

The court applied Rule 57.01(1) factors, acknowledging the defendant's success but reducing the claimed fees due to unnecessarily incurred mediation costs.

Disbursements were awarded in full.

The defendant Tanya Lemcke brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against her, arguing that the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiffs, Louis Sirois and Chandra Martens, alleged that Ms. Lemcke, their real estate agent, failed to disclose plans for a solar farm on an adjacent property, which they became aware of in early 2010.

The court found that the plaintiffs discovered their cause of action by February 2010, as they knew they had suffered damage, even if the full extent was unknown.

Consequently, the two-year limitation period expired in February 2012, prior to Ms. Lemcke being added as a defendant in November 2013.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against Ms. Lemcke.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a business agreement to build and operate a wood-drying kiln.

The plaintiff advanced funds for construction, while the defendant contributed land.

The plaintiff sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and conversion, alleging the defendant lied about his experience, grossly overstated the land's value, failed to account for construction costs, and wrongfully transferred the business property to his own holding company.

The court found the defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations and fundamentally breached the agreement.

The court granted rescission, ordering the defendant to pay restitution of the plaintiff's advanced funds, plus punitive damages for his atrocious conduct.

Claims against the real estate agent were dismissed, while the company's lawyer was found to have breached his duty by facilitating the wrongful property transfer.