J. Virtue

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' property for $1.65M but failed to close, despite two extensions.

The defendants later offered to purchase the property for $1.485M with conditions, which the plaintiffs rejected.

The plaintiffs ultimately sold the property to a third party for $1.2M.

The court found that the defendants breached the agreement and that the plaintiffs had no duty to mitigate by accepting the defendants' lower offer.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, awarding $458,070.13 in damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against him arising from a severe winter motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiffs' vehicle lost control and crossed into the defendant's lane, resulting in a head-on collision.

The motion relied on eyewitness accounts and an expert report suggesting the defendant had no time to react.

The plaintiffs relied on competing expert engineering evidence suggesting the defendant had sufficient time to perceive the hazard and take evasive action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting expert opinions on perception, response time, and evasive maneuvers created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The respondent real estate agent obtained an offer to purchase a property, which triggered a right of first refusal by the vendor's minority shareholders.

The minority shareholders purchased the property, and the appellant brokerage received the commission.

The trial judge found that under the Independent Contractor Agreement and the custom of the trade, the respondent was entitled to 50% of the commission.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, dismissed the appellants' argument regarding unjust enrichment against another agent, and upheld the trial judge's costs order.

The appeal was dismissed.