Lauren Miriam Rakowski

The applicants, private lenders, sought rectification of the land register or re-registration of two discharged second mortgages after a failed real estate closing.

The court found that the applicants had received full payment and voluntarily returned the discharge funds to trust, and that there was no basis in law or equity to grant rectification or re-registration.

The application was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to extend time for service of her statement of claim and for trial.

The defendant, as the successful party on the prior motion, sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued against a costs award, citing modest means and alleged negligence by the defendant and her previous lawyer.

The court affirmed the general rule that costs follow the event and are typically awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

It found no special circumstances to deviate from this principle, noting the plaintiff's insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and that alleged negligence of prior counsel was not a relevant factor in this costs determination.

The court awarded the defendant $14,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sought orders extending the time for service of her statement of claim and to set the action for trial in a solicitor's negligence claim against the defendant law firm.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay of over six and a half years in serving the claim to be extreme and inadequately explained.

The court also found significant actual prejudice to the defendant due to the passage of time, including likely loss of evidence and faded witness memories, and that allowing the action to proceed would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of an agreement of purchase and sale with an ambiguity regarding the calculation of the purchase price, which included Harmonized Sales Tax (HST).

The appellant vendor sought payment of remaining escrow funds.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by failing to properly interpret the agreement according to the principles of contractual interpretation and by relying on inadmissible expert appraisal evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment and costs order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.

The cross-appeal was not addressed.

This case involved two consolidated applications concerning a dispute over the allocation of Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on the sale of a mixed-use property.

The Vendor (Miculinic Investment Corporation) sought the release of escrow funds withheld by the Purchaser (1000029174 Ontario Inc. and 2303515 Ontario Inc.), who had objected to the Vendor's HST allocation and sought a judicial declaration on the residential portion's value.

The court found that it was not its role to determine the HST amount, as the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had already made an assessment.

The court granted the Vendor's application for the release of escrow funds, finding the Purchaser's allocation not unreasonable but upholding the Vendor's right to the funds based on the CRA's assessment and the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Purchaser's cross-application was dismissed.

The appellant, a lawyer, sued the respondents (a law firm and individuals) for alleged breach of solicitor-client privilege.

The respondents successfully moved to strike the action based on issue estoppel, a decision the appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the three-part test for issue estoppel was met.

The Master in an earlier, unrelated proceeding had squarely addressed and decided the privilege issue, finding it waived, and that decision was final due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal.