Matthew J. Diskin

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the lower court judge, and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $10,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that it had repudiated a contract by indicating it would no longer pay the agreed contract price.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual inference that the appellant's conduct, including repeatedly seeking lower quantities and prices, demonstrated an intention not to honour the contract price going forward.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondent accepted the repudiation by cancelling a shipment and pursuing litigation, and effectively communicated this acceptance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering specific performance and purchase price abatements for two real estate transactions.

The trial judge found the appellant vendors were not ready to close, failed to bargain in good faith, and committed an anticipatory breach, while the respondent purchasers were ready, willing, and able to perform.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or his interpretation of the abatement clauses.

The respondents (defendants) moved for security for costs of an appeal and the proceeding below.

The appellants (plaintiffs) are foreign residents with no assets in Ontario, have unpaid costs from the lower court, and are pursuing parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions.

The court granted the motion, ordering the appellants to post security for costs totaling $191,980.59 before taking any further steps in the appeal.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay the action on the ground that India was the more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, noting she correctly articulated and applied the governing legal principles.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.