J. Bennett

The plaintiff obtained a summary judgment against the defendant vendor for an aborted real estate transaction.

After the appeal period expired, the plaintiff filed a writ of seizure and sale against the vendor's property.

However, prior to the writ being filed, the vendor had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a third-party purchaser.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim order to prevent the transfer of the property and declare its writ valid.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the principle that once an agreement of purchase and sale is signed, the purchaser acquires an equitable interest in the property, and a subsequently filed writ of execution against the vendor does not bind the purchaser's interest.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant purchaser for a failed real estate transaction and added their own lawyers, KGB, as a defendant solely because KGB held the deposit in trust.

The defendant purchaser crossclaimed against KGB for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act, alleging KGB negligently drafted the agreement of purchase and sale.

KGB moved to strike the crossclaim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding that KGB owed no duty of care to the opposing party and that the underlying dispute was framed in contract, not negligence.

The crossclaim was struck without leave to amend.

Following a trial decision ordering the applicant to repay overpaid spousal support, the court addressed several post-trial issues.

The court assumed jurisdiction to finalize the judgment despite the applicant's assignment in bankruptcy.

The respondent's request to redact the trial decision to anonymize the child was dismissed.

The court declined to adjust the spousal support repayment amount to account for tax consequences, finding the applicant paid no tax on the support and the respondent's tax liability was a matter for the CRA.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs of $52,500 for the trial.

In a family law trial following a 10-year separation, the court resolved issues of child custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court maintained the existing joint custody and primary residence arrangement for the child.

Income was imputed to both parties: to the applicant for hiding business income and failing to provide financial disclosure, and to the respondent for taking voluntary early retirement.

The court denied the respondent's claim for an unequal division of net family property but ordered the applicant to make an equalization payment.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant was not entitled to the interim spousal support she had received for years and ordered her to repay $67,860 in retroactive spousal support overpayments.

The moving party sought to set aside an ex parte order permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to add the moving party, a former estate solicitor, as a defendant.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, including prior proceedings, the involvement of other counsel, and facts relevant to the limitation period.

The court also determined that any claim against the solicitor was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs discovered the material facts giving rise to the claim no later than November 25, 2009.

As the two‑year limitation period had expired before the solicitor was added as a defendant, the proposed claim constituted an untenable plea.

The ex parte order was therefore set aside and costs were awarded to the moving party.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging professional negligence by their real estate lawyer arising from a failed land development transaction.

After being warned by a previous lawyer about the risks of the deal, the plaintiffs proceeded with a closing handled by the defendant solicitor and later suffered financial losses when the purchaser defaulted and the property was lost through power of sale.

The plaintiffs argued the solicitor failed to meet the required standard of care in structuring the transfer and protecting their interest under a joint venture arrangement.

The court held that expert evidence was required to establish the applicable standard of care in the context of a complex real estate transaction.

In the absence of such evidence, and given that the solicitor followed the client’s instructions and cautioned the client about the risks, negligence was not proven.