J. Juda

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.14 for an extension of time to set the action down for trial.

The action arose from a 2014-2015 sub-tenancy dispute.

The case had stalled since early 2017 because the plaintiff failed to answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court found the plaintiff's explanations for the delay—including the death of a principal, counsel's injury, and the COVID-19 pandemic—to be vague and unsatisfactory given the length of inactivity.

Presuming prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of time, the court dismissed the motion and dismissed the action for delay.

The moving party defendants, a real estate agent and his brokerage, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the responding party defendants, the purchasers in a failed real estate transaction.

The moving parties argued the crossclaim was barred by a full and final release signed by the purchasers in exchange for the return of their deposit.

The purchasers argued the defence of non est factum, claiming they did not understand the document due to language barriers and misrepresentation.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the release extended to the brokerage and that non est factum did not apply because the purchasers were careless in signing the document without reading it or seeking translation, and there was no misrepresentation.