K. Feldman

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike its statement of defence and counterclaim.

The appellant had repeatedly failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, ignored communications from opposing counsel, and breached a consent order requiring the delivery of an affidavit of documents and payment of costs.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber, the Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant's overall failure to participate in the litigation process warranted the extreme remedy of striking its pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his $2,000,000 copyright infringement action against the respondent transit commission.

The appellant claimed copyright over transit route maps based on an unpublished U.S. copyright registration.

The Court of Appeal rejected the respondent's preliminary objection that the appeal belonged in the Divisional Court, noting the claim amount exceeded $50,000.

The Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no originality in the appellant's maps and no evidence the respondent used them, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment decision finding he unjustifiably repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The purchaser argued the vendors failed to provide a survey complying with the agreement, rendering it null and void.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the survey was not essential to the transaction or the purchaser's ability to close, and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $2,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for the return of a $100,000 deposit on a real estate transaction.

The property's depth was significantly less than described in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The respondent vendor had manually added 'To be verified' next to the depth dimension.

The motion judge found this proviso shifted the risk of inaccuracy to the purchaser.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proviso did not impose a pre-contractual obligation on the purchaser to verify dimensions, nor did it transfer the risk or negate the 'more or less' clause.

The deposit was ordered returned to the appellant.