Jasdeep Bal

The added defendants (purchasers) moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff, to lift a stay on a writ of possession, and for the return of their purchase funds after a failed real estate closing.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPL and that the equities favoured the purchasers.

The court discharged the CPL, lifted the stay on the writ of possession, and ordered the vendors' solicitor to immediately return the purchase funds to the purchasers, as the vendors failed to provide vacant possession and clear title on closing.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to file a late responding affidavit to the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, after the deadline in a peremptory timetable order had passed.

The defendant also sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's affiants, which the plaintiff opposed on the basis that the defendant had not filed an affidavit.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice favoured allowing the late affidavit to ensure the case was decided on its merits.

The court also held that under Rule 39.02(1), a party is not required to serve an affidavit as a condition precedent to cross-examining an adverse party's affiant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) over a Scarborough property owned by the defendants, alleging that funds advanced as unsecured debt for a different development were diverted to the Scarborough property, creating a constructive trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue regarding an interest in land.

The court also found that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo to avoid disrupting the defendants' ongoing redevelopment efforts.

The parties settled an application regarding property standards and snow falling from the respondent's roof, but could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $24,026, arguing he was practically successful.

The court found that because there was no Rule 49 offer to settle specifying costs, and the outcome on the merits remained unknown, no order as to costs was appropriate.

A previous $500 costs award for an adjournment remained payable.

The defendant builder brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from mould discovered in a home purchased in 1997.

The plaintiff claimed over $6 million for physical, emotional, and financial injuries.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mould caused his physical injuries or financial losses.

The action was dismissed with costs.