J. Martin

Buyers sought rescission of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property and return of their deposit after discovering water in the basement on their third pre-closing visit.

Sellers sought a declaration of breach, damages, and forfeiture of the deposit.

The court found that the detrimental condition warranty clause in the agreement was limited to the sellers' knowledge and belief at the time of execution, not at closing.

Since the sellers had no knowledge of any water problem before signing the agreement, they did not breach the warranty.

The buyers breached by refusing to close.

The court awarded damages to the sellers totaling $206,703.56, representing the difference in sale price, rental costs, and other incidental expenses.

Buyers sought rescission of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property and return of their deposit after discovering water in the basement on their third pre-closing visit.

Sellers sought a declaration of breach, damages, and forfeiture of the deposit.

The court found that the detrimental condition warranty clause in the agreement was limited to the sellers' knowledge and belief at the time of execution, not at closing.

Since the sellers had no knowledge of any water problem before signing the agreement, they did not breach the warranty.

The buyers breached by refusing to close.

The court awarded damages to the sellers totaling $206,703.56, representing the difference in sale price, rental costs, and other incidental expenses.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following a trial regarding the estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance.

The court considered submissions from both parties, each seeking costs on different bases, but ultimately determined that no costs should be awarded to any party due to the divided success at trial and the nature of the family estate dispute.

Each party is to bear their own costs.

This addendum corrects a factual error in the reasons for decision released February 5, 2025, regarding the date on which shares were given to the parties.

The court clarifies that the shares were given at Christmas 1996, not Christmas 2019, as previously stated in paragraph 169.

The accused, James Williamson, was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose after inflicting multiple stab wounds on the complainant, Steven Leclair.

The central issue at trial was Williamson's claim of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected Williamson's testimony, finding him to be the aggressor and that he did not reasonably believe force was being used or threatened against him.

The court further found that even if such a belief existed, his response of stabbing an unarmed individual four times in the back was unreasonable and excessive.

Additionally, the court concluded that Williamson possessed both the knife and a wooden stick for a purpose dangerous to the public.

The Crown successfully disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, and Williamson was found guilty on all counts.

The self-represented plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought motions to strike the defendant physician's Statement of Defence, compel answers to a third set of written discovery questions, and examine non-party witnesses.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the plaintiff's motions as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.02.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the defence, finding the defendant had adequately answered nearly 300 questions and fulfilled his production obligations.

The court ordered the defendant to answer two specific questions relevant to the pleadings but otherwise dismissed the request for further answers.

The cross-motion and the motion to examine non-parties were also dismissed or adjourned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant Township of Oro-Medonte to answer questions refused at an examination for discovery, produce Standard Operating Procedures, and re-attend discovery.

The defendant argued leave was required because the matter had been set down for trial.

The court found leave was not required as the motion record was served before the trial record, but would have granted leave regardless.

The court ordered the defendant to answer the refused questions, produce the requested documents, and have its representative re-attend discovery at its own expense, finding the requested information relevant to whether the defendant acted reasonably in its response to the downed hydro wires.

The self-represented plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim for an eighth time, leave to examine non-parties, and an order compelling the production of documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments had no chance of success, were presumptively prejudicial due to delay, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court also denied leave to examine non-parties and compel document production, as the plaintiff had not yet conducted an examination for discovery of the defendant.

At a case management conference in a medical malpractice action, the self-represented plaintiff sought to bring motions to amend the Statement of Claim and for further documentary discovery, while the defendant sought a motion regarding the mode of discovery and a timetable.

The case management judge established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials and ordered that examinations for discovery be completed by August 31, 2021.

The accused, G.D., was charged with two counts of sexual assault against two teenage male complainants, PT and WV, occurring between 1997 and 2001.

The Crown sought to admit evidence from each count as similar act evidence for the other.

The court found both complainants credible and reliable, despite their substance abuse and the passage of time, noting specific details and corroboration from other witnesses and the accused's own testimony.

The accused's denials were found evasive, self-serving, and unbelievable.

The court granted the Crown's application for similar act evidence, finding a distinctive pattern of conduct.

The judge concluded that the Crown proved the essential elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt for both counts, leading to findings of guilt.

The Federal Crown and a court-appointed Receiver applied to vary a forfeiture order that required the destruction of seized electronic devices and documents, as the CRA and the Receiver sought access to them for ongoing investigations into an illegal pyramid scheme.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to use certiorari to set aside the destruction order made under s. 490.1(1) of the Criminal Code because a statutory right of appeal to the Court of Appeal existed.

However, the court granted the Receiver's application under s. 490.5, declaring its interest unaffected and suspending the destruction order, and allowed the appeal to set aside the destruction order made under s. 490(9).

The plaintiff, a meat processing company, brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against its former purchasing agent and related corporate and individual defendants.

The plaintiff alleged the purchasing agent engaged in a fraudulent scheme to receive secret commissions on meat purchases by funnelling money through a third-party corporation.

The court found an overwhelming prima facie case of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Given the defendants' failure to produce relevant financial documents and evidence of asset dissipation, the court concluded there was a real risk of assets being removed or disposed of, and granted the Mareva injunction.

In a Commercial List dispute involving the valuation of shares in a pharmacy business and claims regarding termination pay, the parties brought a refusals and production motion relating to documentary disclosure.

During the hearing, the court concluded that the issues required more extensive argument than appropriate for a brief Commercial List refusals motion.

The judge provided guidance regarding production obligations concerning alleged diversion of business and the use of company funds benefiting related entities.

However, the court determined that detailed refusals disputes should be heard by a Master, whose jurisdiction includes such matters.

The motion was therefore referred to a Master for determination, with further case management to follow once the production issues are resolved.