Matthew Morden

The plaintiff purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction after being unable to secure financing.

The defendant vendor subsequently sold the property for a higher price and brought a summary judgment motion to retain the $70,000 deposit.

The plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture, arguing she lacked capacity due to mental health struggles when signing the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and ordered the deposit forfeited.

The parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a mixed-use property, with the contract specifying that HST was 'included in' the purchase price.

After closing, the Canada Revenue Agency reassessed the transaction, significantly increasing the HST payable.

The buyers cross-claimed for breach of contract, seeking a price adjustment for the reassessed HST amount.

The court found that the vendor had assumed the risk of HST and had a duty to adjust the price.

However, the court awarded no damages because the buyers suffered no actual loss, having received input tax credits that fully offset the reassessed HST.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against the board member defendants, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought $15,784.88 for the motion and the action to date, while the plaintiff argued for $7,000.

The court awarded the defendants $10,490 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, finding that while the defendants' claimed hours for research were high, they were entitled to costs for both the motion and the action.

The plaintiff condominium owner sued the condominium corporation and its individual board members for construction deficiencies and alleged negligence in their decision-making.

The board members moved to strike the claims against them, and the plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court struck the claims against the individual directors without leave to amend, finding that the pleadings failed to differentiate the directors' actions from those of the corporation.

The court held that directors cannot be held personally liable for decisions made in their capacity as the directing minds of the corporation absent allegations of independent tortious conduct or a separate identity of interest.

Supplementary reasons following an order setting aside a registrar's dismissal for delay.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that while the plaintiff was successful, it had received an indulgence and the defendants' opposition was reasonable.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering the plaintiff to produce the representative chosen by the defendants for examination for discovery, and setting an attendance fee for witnesses travelling to Toronto.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent a former co-founder and his new company from using a confidential 'Diagnosis Database' for predictive modelling in the insurance industry.

The former co-founder had sold his interest in the plaintiff company and subsequently agreed to conduct a benchmarking study for a former client of the plaintiff.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the misappropriation of trade secrets, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from unfair competition, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted.

Following a successful summary judgment motion against the defendant property manager for professional negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiff condominium corporation sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed full indemnity costs based on an indemnity provision in the condominium management agreement.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to full indemnity of its reasonable costs due to the contractual provision.

Finding the claimed amount of $57,816 excessive despite the defendant's stiff resistance, the court fixed costs at $42,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment against its former property manager for breach of contract and indemnification.

The property manager had issued an inaccurate and incomplete status certificate to a purchaser, failing to disclose an ongoing expropriation and a planned roof replacement project.

As a result, the condominium corporation incurred $97,182.68 in legal costs defending an application brought by the purchaser.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the property manager breached the management agreement and was liable under the indemnity clause for the costs incurred by the condominium corporation.

Dominant tenement holders sought removal of a wall constructed by the servient tenement holders that encroached into a 1916 right of way used as a laneway for ingress and egress.

The court found that although the wall was a permanent structure within the easement, it did not substantially interfere with the use of the right of way because the narrowest obstruction occurred on adjacent municipal property outside the easement.

Evidence showed ordinary vehicles could still pass and no dominant tenement holder had been impeded.

The court also rejected arguments that encroachment created a new easement through adverse possession or that the dominant owners had abandoned part of the easement.

The application was dismissed.