Ioana Vacaru

The court considered whether an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a residential property between Kevin Curridor and Millstone Homes Inc. was valid and enforceable, and determined the appropriate quantum of damages.

The APS was found to be valid and enforceable under the "indoor management rule" of the Business Corporations Act, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of any internal irregularities or fraud.

The court awarded damages based on the difference between the agreed purchase price and the market value, with certain deductions.

The defendant, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence claim by the plaintiff, 1375175 Ontario Inc., on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged negligent issuance of an Order to Comply (OTC) and negligent maintenance of records related to the multi-tenant use of a commercial building.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to discover the claim more than two years before the effective commencement date of the amended claim, thus the claim was statute-barred.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The defendant, 2756646 Ontario Inc. (Mitchell Woods), brought a motion to discharge five certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) registered against nine properties.

The plaintiffs had obtained these CPLs based on Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APS) for homes that were never built.

Mitchell Woods argued the APS were not enforceable against it as it was not the named vendor and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The plaintiffs contended that Hira Custom Homes Inc. acted as Mitchell Woods' agent, or Mitchell Woods was implicitly referenced in the APS, or a constructive trust arose.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land based on agency or implied terms.

Considering the equities, particularly the advantageous terms of the APS and the defendant's failure to provide evidence of its ability to pay damages, the court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPLs.

The plaintiff, Mastronardi Produce Limited (MPL), sued the defendant, Rainbow Acres Inc. (RAI), for $516,686.40 for unpaid seeds and packaging materials.

RAI conceded the principal debt but argued it was largely statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and disputed the 18% interest rate.

The court found that MPL successfully rebutted the presumption of discoverability, determining the claim was not discoverable until 2014 due to the nature of the long-standing commercial relationship and ongoing payment efforts.

The court also found that the debt constituted a running account, and RAI's partial payments and signed acknowledgements reset the limitation period.

However, the court declined to apply the 18% contractual interest rate, finding no implied agreement, and instead awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the default rates prescribed by the Courts of Justice Act.

This appeal concerned a dispute between a real estate developer (appellant) and a home builder (respondent) arising from an agreement for the sale of land.

The appellant sought interest on the unpaid purchase price, alleging the respondent breached provisions related to commencing construction and failing to close the transaction by a stipulated outside date.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of both claims.

The court found no evidence to support the appellant's claim regarding permit availability for construction delays and determined that the appellant's own breach in installing sanitary sewers prevented it from relying on the respondent's alleged delay.

The claim for 12% interest for delayed closing was also rejected due to a lack of proof of damages and the appellant's prior breach.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to stay the plaintiff's Toronto action in favour of their own Windsor action, which involved the same parties and overlapping issues arising from a share purchase agreement.

The court applied the four-factor test under Rule 21.01(3)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the plaintiff bore the chief burden of proof and its claim was more comprehensive, the court found that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the defendants, as the parties, the dispute, and the alleged torts were all located in Essex County.

The cross-motion was granted, and the Toronto action was stayed with leave to convert it into a counterclaim in the Windsor action.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding that it had improperly used a post-tender addendum process as a form of "bid shopping" after accepting the respondent's bid.

The trial judge found that a contract had been formed when the municipality's council resolved to award the contract to the respondent, and that the subsequent re-tendering process and award to another bidder constituted a breach of the municipality's contractual obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that all bidders must be treated fairly in the tender process and that once a bid is accepted and a resolution issued, the municipality is obligated to issue a purchase order incorporating the agreed contract terms.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his claims for wrongful dismissal and severance pay.

The respondents cross-appealed seeking to strike the appellant's remaining claims for emotional distress, breach of human rights, and occupational health and safety violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the wrongful dismissal claim but set aside the striking of the severance pay claim, finding that the limitation period for severance claims should run from the date of completion of employment rather than from the date of notice of termination.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's decision not to strike the remaining claims, finding them entangled with factual issues inappropriate for determination on a rule 21 motion.