Howard Shankman

The plaintiff, a first-time home buyer, entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property after being told by the seller and the real estate agent that the home was over 2,000 square feet.

An appraisal later revealed the property was only 1,450 square feet.

The plaintiff sought rescission of the agreement and the return of his deposit.

The court found that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the negligent misrepresentations regarding the property's size and granted rescission, ordering the return of the $50,000 deposit.

The applicants successfully brought a motion finding the respondents in civil contempt for failing to return nine vehicles as ordered by the court.

In this decision, the court determined the costs of the contempt motion and the appropriate sanction.

The court awarded the applicants costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $42,633.25, noting the respondents' deliberate but not entirely egregious conduct.

For the contempt sanction, applying the Boily factors, the court imposed fines of $10,000 on the corporate respondent and $2,500 on the individual respondent, payable to the Provincial Treasurer, to reflect deterrence and denunciation while acknowledging the contempt had since been purged.

The applicants brought a motion to find the respondents HK United Trucks Limited and Karnail Singh Mand in civil contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring them to return 9 commercial trucks.

The respondents argued they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and needed the trucks to complete contracts.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the respondents knew or ought to have known the trucks belonged to the applicant corporation.

The court found the respondents in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered them to park and secure the trucks pending a sanction hearing.

The appellant appealed an order staying his action pending the payment of outstanding costs orders.

The respondents argued the order was interlocutory and the appeal route was to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the order did not determine any substantive matter in the action.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

In this costs endorsement arising from an estate dispute, the court determined the appropriate scale and amount of costs payable to the successful plaintiffs.

The court found there were no pertinent offers to settle and held that adverse credibility findings against the defendant did not amount to litigation misconduct warranting a costs sanction.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale in the agreed amount of $35,000, payable within thirty days.

The plaintiffs challenged a late-life will and inter vivos transfers made by a deceased testator suffering from Parkinson’s Disease and Lewy Body Dementia, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the surviving spouse.

After reviewing extensive medical records, expert psychiatric evidence, solicitor evidence, and family evidence, the court found the testator lacked testamentary capacity when the 2007 will was executed and that the will and capital transfers were products of undue influence.

The court held that suspicious circumstances were significant, including marked departures from earlier estate plans, failure to obtain a capacity assessment, and inadequate evidence supporting the asserted financial rationale for disinheriting the sons in substance.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs, the third will and impugned transfers were set aside, and the defendant was ordered to return transferred assets to the estate.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to stay or dismiss a civil action due to the plaintiff’s failure to pay multiple outstanding costs orders arising from earlier interlocutory proceedings and appeals.

The self-represented plaintiff argued that the costs had been subsumed in a later costs order that was subsequently overturned, but the court found the earlier orders remained valid and enforceable.

The court held that Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permit a stay or dismissal where a party fails to comply with costs orders.

Finding no acceptable justification for non-payment and noting the plaintiff’s vexatious litigation conduct, the court ordered the action stayed pending payment of all outstanding costs and interest.

The defendants were also awarded costs of the motion.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a 5% commission from the defendant seller.

The defendant sold his property privately to a buyer shortly after the listing agreement allegedly expired, but within the 90-day holdover period.

The defendant argued the listing agreement was invalid due to missing initials for a term exceeding six months and claimed the buyer was not introduced during the listing period.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, held that the listing agreement and holdover clause were valid, and concluded the listing agent had shown the property to the buyer during the listing period.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff.