Herschel Chaiet

The moving party sought release from a terminated agreement of purchase and sale and relief from forfeiture of a 15% condominium deposit after failing to close due to significant post-contract mental health and financial deterioration.

The court held rescission was unavailable because the agreement was entered without duress, fraud, mistake, or other inequitable formation circumstances, and the responding party had no knowledge of disability at contract formation.

Applying s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and Redstone, the court found the deposit was not disproportionate to anticipated loss and that unconscionability was not established on the evidentiary record.

The court emphasized arm’s-length bargaining, purchaser sophistication, good-faith conduct by the seller, and the fundamental nature of the breach.

The application was dismissed, with reduced partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant retained the respondent law firm for an employment dispute.

After the relationship broke down, the firm terminated the retainer and refunded the fees.

The appellant sued the firm and its lawyer in Small Claims Court for breach of contract and professional negligence, seeking $35,000 in damages.

The deputy judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the retainer or professional obligations, and no proven damages.

On appeal, the appellant argued the deputy judge erred in law and denied him procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding errors in the deputy judge's evidentiary rulings or requirement for expert evidence on the standard of care.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant had consented to proceed with closing submissions.

The appellants, owners of a dental clinic, appealed the dismissal of their action against a former independent contractor dentist who left to start his own practice.

The appellants alleged conversion, improper solicitation of patients and employees, appropriation of confidential information, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the dentists carried on independent practices, the departing dentist only contacted his own patients to fulfill professional obligations, and the patient information accessed was not confidential.

The court also rejected claims regarding breach of fiduciary duty and the contractual duty of good faith.