Manou Ranaivoson

On cross-appeal from a Superior Court judgment, the appellants challenged four discrete issues arising from a contractual dispute.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal in part, finding that the respondents were entitled to restitution of interest paid relating to the Petting Zoo property, prejudgment interest on damages awarded for the Petting Zoo, and reimbursement of municipal property taxes paid on the property.

The Court upheld the motion judge's calculation of principal owed and dismissed the appeal on the main issues.

The appellants were awarded costs of the cross-appeal.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granting rescission and damages with respect to one vacant property (Petting Zoo) and issuing a certificate of pending litigation with respect to another property (Lot 511).

The respondents had made payments totalling $168,727.74 between 2006 and 2013 towards the purchase of both properties, but the appellant retained title to both.

The appellant argued the respondents had defaulted on their payment obligations and forfeited their interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's own breach in failing to obtain severance of Lot 511 justified the respondents' cessation of payments and entitled them to the remedies granted.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for an oppression remedy, the plaintiff sought costs of $22,352.93.

The defendants argued for a reduced amount of $7,500 due to the plaintiff's unsuccessful fraud claims and challenged the validity of the plaintiff's offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle was valid, entitling the plaintiff to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court made a nominal reduction for the unsuccessful fraud claims and fixed costs at $21,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, an unpaid judgment creditor, sought summary judgment against the defendants (a pharmacy, its controlling director, and related corporations) alleging fraudulent conveyances, illegal dividends, and corporate oppression.

The plaintiff claimed that the director transferred assets from the pharmacy to defeat her claims.

The court dismissed the claims under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, Assignments and Preferences Act, and for illegal dividends under the Business Corporations Act, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the director's intent and the pharmacy's financial status.

However, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the corporate oppression claim under the Business Corporations Act, finding that the director's actions, with knowledge of the plaintiff's claims, unfairly prejudiced and disregarded her interests as a creditor.

The defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the outstanding amounts from the original lawsuit.

Following a trial concerning a failed real estate transaction, the vendor sought damages for the difference between the agreed purchase price and the eventual resale price after the purchasers refused to close.

The purchasers successfully resisted the vendor’s $100,000 claim and obtained partial recovery on their counterclaim.

In this addendum and costs decision, the court determined the successful purchasers were entitled to costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from appellate authority, the court fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive payable by the unsuccessful vendor.

The court also clarified that a $1,000 deposit held by the real estate brokerage was to be returned to the purchasers as part of the rescission of the contract.

A vendor sued purchasers for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale after they refused to close on a residential property.

The purchasers discovered before closing that the property had been constructed on top of a discontinued landfill site and alleged negligent misrepresentation in the vendor’s Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS).

The court held that once a vendor completes an SPIS, the doctrine of caveat emptor does not protect misleading answers.

The vendor’s responses regarding environmental contamination and landfill activity were misleading and constituted negligent misrepresentation.

The purchasers were entitled to rescind the agreement and recover certain expenses incurred in reliance on the misrepresentation.