D. Saverino

The plaintiff vendors brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant purchasers for damages arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The purchasers had refused to close, arguing that four utility easements registered on title were valid requisitions that the vendors failed to remove.

The court found that the easements were standard minor utility easements explicitly excepted under paragraph 10 of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and were clearly shown on the survey attached to the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the vendors, finding the purchasers breached the contract, and awarded $430,000 in damages based on the loss from the property's resale.

Mortgagees moved for judgment for the outstanding balance remaining after a mortgaged property was sold and creditors paid.

The only remaining issue concerned the final calculation of the mortgage debt after construction liens registered against the property were discharged.

The responding mortgagor, through newly retained counsel, challenged the mortgage calculations but provided no alternative figures and raised concerns about discrepancies in earlier accounting and a potential conflict involving the lender’s counsel.

The court found the plaintiffs’ sworn accounting reliable and concluded the objections amounted to delay tactics.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding mortgage balance together with contractual post‑judgment interest.

A lender brought a motion seeking judgment under loan guarantees, possession of mortgaged property, and leave to issue a writ of possession following default under a standstill agreement and related loan documents.

The respondents challenged the procedure, service of demand, jurisdiction of the Commercial List, and compliance with notice requirements under the Mortgages Act.

The court found no material facts in dispute and held that proceeding by application was appropriate under Rule 14.05(3)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court determined that the guarantees were enforceable, notice requirements had been satisfied, and the applicant was entitled to possession and related remedies.

Judgment was granted for the indebtedness together with possession, a writ of possession, and costs.

Following an unopposed motion striking a corporate plaintiff from a statement of claim due to lack of corporate capacity after dissolution, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against both the corporate and individual plaintiffs.

The court considered whether the conduct of the litigation justified elevated costs and whether the individual plaintiff should be personally liable.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for exceptional circumstances such as unproven allegations of fraud or litigation misconduct, and those circumstances were not present.

The evidence linking the individual plaintiff to the corporation was insufficient to impose costs against him personally.

Costs were awarded only against the corporate plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.