Harry Perlis

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporate entity, to post security for costs.

The plaintiff conceded it had no assets or income but argued it was impecunious and its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and could not assess the merits at an interlocutory stage.

While noting the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court ordered the plaintiff to post partial security for costs, balancing the need to protect defendants from unenforceable cost awards against allowing a claim to proceed.

The court determined the costs payable following a trial where the plaintiff vendor successfully sued the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction, and successfully defended against the purchaser's claims of conspiracy, fraud, and professional negligence.

The court awarded the vendor and her real estate agent partial and hybrid substantial indemnity costs totaling $265,000, considering the unproven allegations of fraud, the complexity of the proceedings, and the impact of Rule 49 offers to settle.

The plaintiff, Klara Kazakevich, brought an action against the defendant, Konstantin Sychev, for damages arising from an aborted residential real estate transaction.

Sychev had agreed to purchase Kazakevich's property but failed to close, alleging that the waiver of a condition was backdated and that his real estate agent, Angelika Bekman, was negligent and made misrepresentations.

The court found that the agreement of purchase and sale was validly formed, all conditions were duly waived, and there was no fraud or misrepresentation.

Sychev's refusal to close constituted an anticipatory breach.

The court awarded Kazakevich damages for the difference in the resale price and carrying costs, and dismissed Sychev's claims against Kazakevich and Bekman.

This endorsement addresses eight related motions in five consolidated actions stemming from uncompleted real estate transactions.

The court case-managed the proceedings, resolving most motions by agreement or direction.

The primary substantive dispute adjudicated concerned the quantum of security for costs to be paid by the plaintiffs, Gui Zhao and Juanli Liu, to the defendant Qing Hui, which the court set at $27,000, a figure between the parties' proposals.

Other motions, including those for discovery and to strike a cross-claim, were adjourned sine die with directions for future resolution or agreement.

The plaintiff sued her real estate agent and broker for negligence after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The defendants issued a third party claim against the plaintiff's litigation counsel, alleging they were negligent in their conduct of the prior litigation regarding the failed transaction.

The third parties brought a motion to strike the third party claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the third parties were not implicated in the events giving rise to the initial loss, and any alleged negligence by the plaintiff's counsel in mitigating the loss could be raised as a defence against the plaintiff directly.