Harry Sarros

A private lending company brought claims against a law firm and associate lawyer for professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract arising from a mortgage transaction.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court found that while the defendants owed a narrow duty of care to the plaintiff based on their legal opinion letter, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence regarding the standard of care required of solicitors conducting mortgage transactions.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of damages.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the defendants, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The plaintiff brought and subsequently abandoned a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action regarding renovation services.

The defendants sought costs for the abandoned motion forthwith.

The plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to trial as the work done would be useful later.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs forthwith, finding it unfair to defer costs to a trial that might not occur.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,713.50, as there was no evidence the plaintiff acted unreasonably or in bad faith to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment ordering them to repay $120,000 to the respondents.

The parties had entered into a property sale agreement, and the appellants had borrowed $120,000 from the respondents, which was to be repaid through the closing of the sale.

When the sale did not close, the respondents sought return of the funds.

The application judge found the $120,000 was a loan, not a deposit, and ordered repayment.

The appellants argued the entire sum was a forfeited deposit and that the respondents failed to demonstrate readiness to complete the purchase.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding the evidence clearly established the $120,000 was a loan to be repaid either through the sale or directly if the sale did not complete.

The applicants and respondents were equal shareholders in a corporation that owned a commercial property.

They entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) for the respondents to buy the applicants' shares.

The respondents failed to complete the payments under the SPA and subsequently excluded the applicants from the corporation's management, including selling the property without the applicants' consent.

The court found that the respondents repudiated the SPA and acted oppressively.

The SPA was terminated, and the applicants remained one-third shareholders, entitling them to an equal share of the net proceeds from the property's sale.

The respondents were granted relief from forfeiture for the $50,000 already paid under the SPA, but the funds were to be held pending a costs determination.

The defendants brought a motion regarding outstanding undertakings and refusals, which was resolved between counsel prior to the hearing, leaving only the issue of costs.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking various relief, including leave to file a jury notice out of time, further documentary discovery, answers to refused questions, and leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs for the main motion due to the failure to address undertakings in a timely manner.

On the cross-motion, the court granted leave to file a jury notice and an amended statement of claim, but dismissed the requests for further discovery and answers to refusals.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs for the cross-motion.