J. Goldblatt

The plaintiff vendor and defendant purchaser cross-moved for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The vendor claimed the purchaser anticipatorily breached the agreement based on third-hand information about the purchaser's lack of funds and a request for a closing extension, and thus the vendor did not tender on closing day.

The court held that third-party information and requests for extensions do not constitute anticipatory breach.

Because there was no anticipatory breach, the vendor was required to tender to preserve her rights.

The vendor's action was dismissed.

The defendant solicitor brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against him for damages for an improvident sale and for an accounting of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs, who were third mortgagees, conceded the improvident sale claim against the solicitor.

However, they maintained the claim for an accounting, arguing the solicitor owed a duty to disburse funds honestly and account to subsequent encumbrancers under the Mortgages Act.

The court found the accounting claim was not doomed to fail and dismissed the motion to strike it, but ordered that the claim against the solicitor would be struck if he provided the accounting within 10 days.

The plaintiff commenced an action relating to a 2006 real estate transaction, which was the third proceeding initiated regarding the same transaction.

The defendant lawyer moved to strike the claim against him for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, while the other defendants moved to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court granted both motions, finding the claim against the lawyer incomprehensible and incapable of amendment, and the claim against the other defendants a clear attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in prior proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike or stay the Canadian action brought against them by the plaintiffs, arguing it was an abuse of process or should be stayed due to a parallel U.S. action commenced by related plaintiffs against related defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the U.S. action involved different defendants, different causes of action, different laws, and different jurisdictions.

The court held that the plaintiffs' conduct was not vexatious or oppressive, and the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice to justify a permanent or temporary stay.