H. J. Ash

The applicant brought an application against the respondents.

The court previously determined that one of the respondents was a party under disability and adjourned the matter pending the appointment of a litigation guardian.

At a subsequent case conference, the court was advised that no litigation guardian had been appointed.

The court ordered that the application remain adjourned sine die until a litigation guardian is appointed, and scheduled a further case conference.

The applicant law firm brought an application under the Solicitors Act to approve a retainer agreement with the respondent.

The respondent argued she lacked the mental capacity to enter into the agreement.

The Public Guardian and Trustee and other respondents argued the application should be stayed as the respondent was a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The court found the respondent was a party under disability pursuant to Rule 7.01(1) and adjourned the application sine die until a litigation guardian is appointed or medical evidence confirms her capacity to instruct counsel.

The plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw alleged admissions in their statement of claim and to amend it, specifically regarding whether plaintiff Mekhaeel signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The defendant opposed the withdrawal of the admission concerning paragraph 4.

The court applied the three-part test for withdrawing an admission, finding that while a triable issue existed, the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the change in position and that significant prejudice to the defendant, uncompensable by costs, would result due to the passage of time, the defendant's reliance on the original pleading, and potential limitation period issues for third-party claims.

The motion to withdraw the admission at paragraph 4 was dismissed, though an unopposed amendment to paragraph 2 was granted.

The appellants, real estate agents, appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent for their failure to include a financing condition in a second offer to purchase a residential property.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding that the respondent suffered no damage as a result of the appellants' omission.

Even if the condition had been included, the conditional period would have expired before the bank withdrew its financing approval, leaving the respondent in the same position.

The cross-appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the appellants' conduct.