Vladimira Ivanov

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application to enforce a Buyer's Representation Agreement, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $38,293.35.

The applicants challenged the hourly rates, expert fees, and time claimed.

The court found the hourly rates and expert fees reasonable, but deducted time spent on case conferences related solely to the respondent's witnesses' availability.

The applicants were ordered to pay $35,000 in costs.

A real estate agent brought an application for a 2.5 percent commission on a property purchased by the respondent through another agent, relying on a Buyer's Representation Agreement (BRA).

The respondent brought a cross-application to declare the BRA void, raising the defence of non est factum.

The court found that the agent misrepresented the fundamental nature of the BRA to the respondent's father by stating it only applied to a specific property, not any property purchased within four months.

The court held the respondent was not careless in relying on her father's explanation and signing without reading.

The BRA was declared void ab initio and the agent's application was dismissed.

At a case management hearing, the court provided procedural directions for an upcoming two-day trial.

Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the respondent's father, residing in Ukraine, was unable to travel to Canada.

The court ordered a hybrid trial, allowing the father to testify via video while other witnesses would testify in person, subject to courtroom availability and pandemic restrictions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation and disclosure of real estate transactions regarding a property he previously occupied.

The defendant second mortgagee brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against it and for a judicial sale of the property.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding damages were an adequate remedy and the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate a prior default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the action against it on the basis of res judicata and ordering a judicial sale of the property.

The applicants, engaged in combating government corruption in Malaysia, sought a Norwich Pharmacal order to compel financial institutions to produce confidential information about a Canadian real estate group.

The applicants suspected the group was funded by proceeds of foreign corruption and contemplated a private criminal prosecution for money laundering and receipt of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants lacked reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence had been committed, and that it would be inappropriate to use the court's inherent civil jurisdiction to bypass the careful balance struck by Parliament in the Criminal Code for criminal investigations and private prosecutions.

The appellant was successful in an oppression action against the respondents.

The respondents had served an offer to settle nine calendar days before trial, which technically amounted to fewer than seven days under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The trial judge treated the offer as a valid Rule 49 offer and awarded costs accordingly.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the 'no near miss' policy applies to the timing requirement under rule 49.03, meaning the offer was not a valid Rule 49 offer.

However, the Court upheld the costs award, finding that the trial judge was entitled to take the offer into account under his residual discretion pursuant to rule 49.13.