Joel S. Kuchar

The plaintiffs sought damages for alleged breach of an agreement of purchase and sale requiring the vendor to remove all existing structures, including foundations and the concrete slab on grade, from a commercial property.

After a trial focused largely on credibility and proof of loss, the court found the vendor had completed the demolition work, including removal of the slab and footings, and rejected the plaintiffs' factual allegations to the contrary.

The court also found that any alleged delay tied to a vendor's lien resulted from the plaintiffs' own inaction and that no actual out-of-pocket losses were proven.

The action was dismissed, and judgment on the defendant's crossclaim directed payment out of the $65,000 holdback plus accrued interest.

A commercial landlord applied for a declaration that a lease with its tenant gym operator was terminated and sought an order for possession due to alleged nuisance caused by excessive noise.

The evidentiary record consisted largely of hearsay and minimal firsthand evidence, and the landlord had not complied with procedural requirements for expert evidence regarding acoustics.

The tenant’s responding materials were also procedurally deficient and attempted to seek relief, including an interlocutory injunction, without proper originating process or motion materials.

The court found the pleadings and evidentiary record insufficient to permit an intelligible adjudication of the parties’ rights and obligations.

The application was adjourned to allow the parties to clarify issues, consider proper procedures, and potentially pursue settlement.

The appellants moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of their Divisional Court appeal and to extend the time for appeal.

The appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar based on a misapprehension that no transcript was required.

The court found that the dismissal was an administrative error, as transcripts had been ordered and the trial judge had not yet issued a final judgment on the construction lien issues.

The court set aside the dismissal and granted the extension of time, finding the four-part test for an extension was met.

A renovation contractor brought an action to recover unpaid amounts for residential renovation work and to enforce a construction lien.

The homeowners alleged the project was subject to a $100,000 budget cap and a mid‑January completion deadline and advanced a substantial counterclaim alleging defective workmanship and misrepresentation by the contractor and an associated interior designer.

The court rejected the homeowners’ evidence as lacking credibility and accepted the contractor’s evidence that the parties agreed to a revised renovation budget with additional extras requested during construction.

The court found the total contract price, including extras, exceeded the amount paid and that the homeowners owed the contractor outstanding amounts.

After accounting for certain deficiencies and repair issues, the court reduced the amount recoverable and dismissed the claims against the interior designer and her company.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for breach of construction contracts and imposing a constructive trust on a portion of the funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's calculation of damages and the finding of personal liability against the individual appellant, as he failed to disclose he was acting for a corporate entity.

However, the Court set aside the constructive trust, finding that the risk of the appellants' bankruptcy was purely speculative and damages were an adequate remedy.

The appeal was allowed in part.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Raxx Billiards & Bar, the Board ordered the corporate licensee to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries to the Registrar 10 days before the hearing.

The Registrar was also ordered to complete any further disclosure 10 days before the hearing.

The appellant appealed an order of a Master dismissing its motion to amend a case management timetable and granting the respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the action for breach of court orders and timetables.

The court considered the appropriate standard of review for a Master's final discretionary decision, noting conflicting jurisprudence between a rehearing standard and a 'clearly wrong' standard.

The court concluded it was unnecessary to finally determine the standard, as the appeal would be dismissed under either standard.

The Master was not clearly wrong, and the court would have exercised its discretion in the same way.