Harry Perlis

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporate entity, to post security for costs.

The plaintiff conceded it had no assets or income but argued it was impecunious and its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and could not assess the merits at an interlocutory stage.

While noting the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court ordered the plaintiff to post partial security for costs, balancing the need to protect defendants from unenforceable cost awards against allowing a claim to proceed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from the purchase of a radiology clinic.

The plaintiff claimed it was impecunious and that its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and that the merits of the complex claim could not be properly assessed at the interlocutory stage.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the total amount of $80,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court determined the costs payable following a trial where the plaintiff vendor successfully sued the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction, and successfully defended against the purchaser's claims of conspiracy, fraud, and professional negligence.

The court awarded the vendor and her real estate agent partial and hybrid substantial indemnity costs totaling $265,000, considering the unproven allegations of fraud, the complexity of the proceedings, and the impact of Rule 49 offers to settle.

The plaintiff, Klara Kazakevich, brought an action against the defendant, Konstantin Sychev, for damages arising from an aborted residential real estate transaction.

Sychev had agreed to purchase Kazakevich's property but failed to close, alleging that the waiver of a condition was backdated and that his real estate agent, Angelika Bekman, was negligent and made misrepresentations.

The court found that the agreement of purchase and sale was validly formed, all conditions were duly waived, and there was no fraud or misrepresentation.

Sychev's refusal to close constituted an anticipatory breach.

The court awarded Kazakevich damages for the difference in the resale price and carrying costs, and dismissed Sychev's claims against Kazakevich and Bekman.

This endorsement addresses eight related motions in five consolidated actions stemming from uncompleted real estate transactions.

The court case-managed the proceedings, resolving most motions by agreement or direction.

The primary substantive dispute adjudicated concerned the quantum of security for costs to be paid by the plaintiffs, Gui Zhao and Juanli Liu, to the defendant Qing Hui, which the court set at $27,000, a figure between the parties' proposals.

Other motions, including those for discovery and to strike a cross-claim, were adjourned sine die with directions for future resolution or agreement.

The plaintiff sued her real estate agent and broker for negligence after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The defendants issued a third party claim against the plaintiff's litigation counsel, alleging they were negligent in their conduct of the prior litigation regarding the failed transaction.

The third parties brought a motion to strike the third party claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the third parties were not implicated in the events giving rise to the initial loss, and any alleged negligence by the plaintiff's counsel in mitigating the loss could be raised as a defence against the plaintiff directly.

On a written Rule 2.1 review, the court dismissed an action arising from power of sale proceedings, the subsequent sale of a property, and allegations that multiple defendants colluded to deprive the plaintiff of property and belongings.

The court held the plaintiff lacked standing because the property had been owned by a dissolved corporation, found no pleaded cause of action against the various defendants, and accepted that the claims were also abuse of process and statute-barred on their face.

The court further relied on overlap with an earlier Brampton action concerning the same underlying property dispute.

The entire action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The court awarded costs of the appeal and cross-appeal to the respondent (appellant-by-cross-appeal) on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $27,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a decision granting declaratory relief to the respondent regarding an easement and an undertaking to grant a further access easement.

The appellant argued the easements were conditional on the respondent building a synagogue on its retained lands, which it later decided to develop for residential purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no language in the agreements or undertaking restricting the use of the easements to a synagogue, and no evidence that the change in use would increase the burden on the servient tenement.

The respondent's cross-appeal to stay the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation until the easement was registered was allowed.

The appellants brought a motion for an order directing the trial of certain issues allegedly outstanding from a 1993 judgment based on Minutes of Settlement.

The motions judge directed a trial on only some issues and stayed a subsequent 1999 action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to support the requested order.