James Quigley

The plaintiff buyer brought a motion for a preservation order or a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding an abortive real estate transaction for a residential property.

The defendant seller repudiated the agreement, arguing it was an unconscionable contract and that the plaintiff, a real estate lawyer, took advantage of her vulnerability.

The court dismissed the request for a preservation order, finding it inappropriate for real property in this context.

However, the court granted the CPL, finding that the plaintiff had a reasonably strong prima facie claim for specific performance and that the property was unique in the requisite legal sense.

The plaintiff appealed a decision of an Associate Justice refusing to grant a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a residential property.

The plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the defaulting mortgagor, argued the Associate Justice breached natural justice by relying on a post-hearing Google search and making observations about building permits without allowing submissions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the grounds of appeal were meritorious, they were not material.

The CPL could not stay the enforcement rights of the prior-ranking mortgagee, who had commenced power of sale proceedings before the agreement was signed.

At a case conference, the plaintiffs sought to adjourn the defendants' upcoming summary judgment motion in a solicitor's negligence action.

The plaintiffs argued they needed to obtain expert evidence regarding the standard of care, which they could only do after cross-examining the defendant lawyer due to a lack of documentary production.

The court agreed that the summary judgment motion was premature and adjourned it, directing the plaintiffs to bring a motion for leave to deliver expert evidence.

The plaintiff franchisor brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate franchisee and its personal guarantor for unpaid royalties and advertising fees.

The corporate defendant had been voluntarily dissolved and the individual defendant had transferred his shares without the plaintiff's consent.

The defendants did not appear at the motion.

The court validated service on the corporate defendant, found no genuine issue for trial regarding the breach of the franchise agreement and guarantee, and granted summary judgment for the unpaid fees plus interest at the contractual rate of 24%.

The plaintiff franchisor brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid royalties and advertising expenses incurred after the franchise agreement expired.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and raised credibility issues.

The court found that the terms of the expired agreement continued to govern the parties' relationship as they had operated under it for 19 months post-expiry.

However, the court held that claims arising more than two years before the Statement of Claim was issued were statute-barred.

Judgment was granted for amounts billed within the limitation period, with interest.