Harpeet Singh Makkar

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were partially successful.

The court awarded summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for damages, but dismissed their claim for forfeiture of the purchaser's deposit, instead allowing a credit for the deposits paid.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $47,964.29, but the court, applying Rule 57.01 and Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reduced the award to $19,610.13, all-inclusive.

The reduction was based on the plaintiffs' divided success on the motion and their conduct affecting the length of the proceeding due to a lack of clarity in their financial submissions.

The plaintiffs, vendors of a residential property, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The purchaser failed to close, citing frustration due to a decline in real estate values and inability to secure financing, despite having removed a financing condition from the agreement.

The court rejected the frustration argument, finding the events were foreseeable and did not radically alter the contract.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for loss of property value, financing costs, carrying costs, and legal fees thrown away, with the purchaser's deposit credited against the total damages.