3 total
Purchaser repudiated real estate contract by imposing unreasonable closing date.
A homebuilder sued a purchaser for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale after the transaction failed to close.
The purchaser had moved into the property under an interim occupancy agreement while the vendor sought a minor zoning variance required due to a setback issue.
The purchaser attempted to reinstate a “time of the essence” clause and set a final closing date, then treated the agreement as terminated when the vendor did not close on that date.
The court held that the purchaser’s notice was ineffective because it imposed new conditions, set an unreasonable closing date, and was motivated by bad faith.
The purchaser repudiated the contract, entitling the vendor to retain the deposits as liquidated damages and recover certain additional amounts under collateral and occupancy agreements.
Appeal allowed; error in law to bar child access motion solely due to unpaid costs.
The appellant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion for leave to bring a motion for access to his 12-year-old son.
The motion judge had refused leave solely because the father had not paid previously ordered costs.
The Court of Appeal held that it is an error in law to bar a parent from seeking access solely on the ground of unpaid costs without considering the amount, reasons for non-payment, and ability to pay.
The Court set aside the decision, granted the father leave to bring his access motion, and ordered interim unsupervised access, noting the troubling history of ex parte non-contact orders that lacked evidentiary foundation.
Fraud conviction upheld; trial judge made no reversible errors in assessing evidence of misrepresentation.
The appellant appealed his fraud conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's evidence, misapprehended evidence regarding representations made to induce a loan, and misapprehended evidence concerning repayment of other loans.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to consider the absence of contradicting evidence, accurately recalled the evidence of misrepresentation, and that any misapprehension regarding other loans would not have affected the verdict.
An application to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.