Kevin D. Sherkin

The appellants, Ontario residents, sold a Florida lot to the respondents.

A dispute arose, and the respondents obtained a default judgment in Florida for US$260,000 after the appellants failed to properly defend the action.

The respondents sought to enforce the judgment in Ontario, which had grown to approximately C$800,000.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 'real and substantial connection' test applies to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The Court found that the Florida court properly took jurisdiction and that the appellants failed to establish the defences of fraud, natural justice, or public policy.

The appeal was dismissed, and the foreign judgment was enforced.

The appellants were investors who signed agreements to purchase condominium units, paying the balance of the purchase price by delivery of promissory notes to the vendor.

The vendor assigned the notes to the respondent bank, which had no knowledge that the vendor would be unable to convey title.

When title was not conveyed, the investors stopped making payments, and the bank sued to enforce the notes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the notes were unconditional promises to pay within the meaning of s. 176(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act, distinguishing the case from Range v. Belvedere Finance Corp., and dismissed the appeal.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment, the appellant requested a reconsideration of part of the decision.

The Court of Appeal declined to change the reasons for judgment.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondents in the amount of $17,808.35 plus GST.

The respondents purchased condominium units as tax-sheltered investments, with the purchase price allocated between land/construction and services.

When the vendor failed to deliver title, the respondents sought compensation from the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

The Program argued the contract was severable and refused to compensate for the services portion.

The Court of Appeal held that the agreements constituted a single contract for the provision of a home at fair market value, entitling the respondents to compensation for the full purchase price.

The Court also clarified that prejudgment interest is payable out of the guarantee fund at the rate prescribed by the Condominium Act, not the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its motion to amend its damage claim and the award of only nominal damages for expenditures incurred prior to the respondent's breach of contract.

The respondent cross-appealed the finding that it breached the contract and the trial judge's costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly concluded the amendment would cause prejudice, that the appellant's expenses would have exceeded its benefits had the contract been performed, and that the respondent's reasons for terminating the contract were manufactured.

In an addendum to a majority judgment, the Divisional Court clarified that the applicants were entitled to interest on damages payable out of the guarantee fund under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The court held that pursuant to the regulations, interest is payable at the Condominium Act rate and may increase the total payment beyond the standard $20,000 maximum limit.

Interest was ordered payable from the date the Warranty Program initially denied the claims.

The appellants purchased two condominiums as tax-sheltered investments.

The vendor failed to convey title, and the appellants obtained an unpaid judgment against the vendor.

The appellants applied to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program for compensation.

The Program and the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal denied compensation for business and investment costs, allowing only land and construction costs, and deducted tax savings.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the entire transaction, including service contracts integral to the condominium purchase, but agreed that tax savings must be deducted from the total financial loss.