Matt Mulholland

The appellant appealed the Registrar's order for the immediate suspension of her real estate licence pending a hearing for revocation.

The Registrar alleged serious breaches of the Code of Ethics, including a pattern of abuse and harassment towards former business partners and failure to disclose criminal charges.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a prima facie case of conduct that poses a risk to the public.

The Tribunal ordered that the immediate suspension be extended until the conclusion of the revocation hearing, as it is in the public interest to protect the public from such conduct.

The appellants (purchasers) appealed a summary judgment order forfeiting their deposit after a failed residential real estate transaction.

They argued they were entitled to rescind the agreement because the MLS listing misrepresented the home's square footage.

The motion judge found that the purchasers, one of whom was an experienced real estate agent, relied on their personal inspection of the property rather than the MLS listing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's factual inferences were reasonable and supported by the evidence, including the purchasers' repeated affirmations of their intent to close after discovering the actual square footage.

The plaintiff buyer failed to close a real estate transaction due to an inability to secure financing.

The plaintiff attempted to renegotiate the purchase price and deposit, which the defendant sellers rejected.

The defendants subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $5,000 less and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action and release the $65,000 deposit to them.

The court granted the motion, finding no bad faith, no failure to mitigate, and no grounds for relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was reasonable and there was no unconscionability.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of a software license agreement, a general security agreement, and the duty of honest performance.

The dispute centered on whether the defendant's newly bundled software suite constituted 'Replacement Software' triggering higher royalty payments, and whether the defendant failed to negotiate in good faith regarding pricing changes.

The court dismissed the action, finding that only one module of the bundled suite met the contractual definition of Replacement Software.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove any breach of the duty of honest dealing, as there was no evidence of dishonesty or a refusal to negotiate by the defendant.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, including interview results and performance reviews, and requested that two of her witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone.

The Tribunal ordered the Ministry to produce the applicant's interview results and the redacted interview results of successful candidates, finding them arguably relevant to her reprisal allegations.

The request for performance reviews of other employees was denied as irrelevant.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the telephone testimony request until the applicant provided the required medical reports and detailed witness statements.