Jonathan D. Langley

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering specific performance of an oral agreement to sell land to the respondent for $4.1 million.

The appellant argued the oral agreement was unenforceable under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds, contending the detrimental reliance aspect of the doctrine of part performance was not met because the respondent's only obligation was to pay the purchase price, which was tendered but refused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding the respondent irremediably carried out its obligations to its detriment by taking all necessary steps to close the transaction while the appellant stood by.

The landlords brought a motion for default judgment against their former commercial tenant for breach of a lease agreement.

The court found the tenant liable based on deemed admissions from the statement of claim.

Damages were awarded for arrears of rent, lost future rent (mitigated by re-leasing), re-leasing commission costs, amounts paid to discharge a lien, and amounts paid to a secured creditor.

The court declined to award commission costs from the original lease or the leasehold improvement allowance, deeming them not caused by the breach or a potential windfall.

The plaintiff was entirely successful at a five-day trial for specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of land and sought partial indemnity costs of $164,698.14.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive due to over-lawyering and suggested $70,000.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principles from Apotex, reducing the legal fees to account for duplication but allowing time for an articling student who managed documents during the virtual trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in fees plus $19,120.98 in disbursements, plus HST.

The plaintiff purchaser brought an action for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase a 32-acre property from the defendant owner.

The parties had negotiated an all-cash deal for $4.1 million, with the purchaser paying a $200,000 broker commission.

The owner later refused to close the transaction, arguing there was no binding agreement and relying on the Statute of Frauds.

The Superior Court of Justice found that a binding oral agreement was reached on all essential terms.

The court held that the doctrine of part performance applied, taking the agreement outside the Statute of Frauds, as both parties had engaged in acts unequivocally referable to the land.

Finding the property unique due to its contiguity with the purchaser's existing land, the court ordered specific performance.

Costs decision following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction and the dismissal of the defendant XTM's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to either party.

The court awarded net partial indemnity costs of $25,000 to XTM.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 to amicus curiae representing the self-represented defendants, and $3,982.69 for disbursements incurred directly by the self-represented defendants.

The moving party, XTM, Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice R.A. Lococo dated August 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction against its former Chief Technology Officer and a competitor, seeking the return or destruction of alleged confidential information.

The competitor brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the injunction motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, largely due to a 22-month delay in pursuing the motion.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the competitor's knowing involvement and the causation of the plaintiff's loss of a major client.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to compel answers and document production regarding communications between the respondent and its counsel.

The appellant alleged the respondent used false evidence to procure her prosecution by IIROC, arguing the fraud/crime exception to solicitor-client privilege applied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the communications were made to facilitate a crime or civil wrong, as the false information had no bearing on the regulatory investigation.

This is a case management endorsement providing procedural directions for an appeal from an interlocutory order.

The endorsement sets out the schedule for the appeal hearing, which will be conducted as a video conference, and details requirements for electronic document submission, including formatting, hyperlinking authorities, and preparing compendiums.

It also reminds counsel to address costs in advance.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved to amend its statement of claim to add a claim for damages related to the repair and replacement of a transformer, alleging violations of environmental regulations and fraudulent concealment by a former director.

The motion was opposed by several defendants on the grounds that the new claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and constituted an abuse of process due to a pending arbitration.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred as the limitation period began when its corporate solicitor received an order from Environment Canada in February 2014, putting it on notice of the damage, and that full quantification of damages was not required to start the clock.

The court also rejected the argument that a civil action was not an "appropriate means" to seek a remedy at that time.