Matt Mulholland

The applicant and respondent are co-estate trustees of their late mother's estate.

The primary remaining assets are two properties.

The applicant sought various relief including the removal of the respondent as co-trustee and the eviction of the respondent's son, who had been living on the properties rent-free.

At the hearing, the respondent's request for an adjournment was denied due to weak evidence and the long history of the matter.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement on all issues except the eviction of the son.

The court ordered the son to vacate the properties and remove his belongings, finding no legal basis for him to remain rent-free and noting the necessity of selling the properties to administer the estate.

This litigation concerns the Estate of Basile Sipidias.

The primary issue on this motion was whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement at a judicial mediation on January 17, 2023.

Evangeline Sipidias (a respondent and estate trustee) brought the motion to enforce the settlement, supported by Theodore Sipidias (the applicant).

Constantin Sipidias (another respondent and estate trustee) opposed, arguing no settlement was reached or that it was vitiated by misrepresentation regarding a joint bank account.

The court found that a settlement of essential terms was reached, as evidenced by the presiding judge's endorsements.

The alleged innocent misrepresentation regarding the joint bank account was deemed not material enough to rescind the settlement, given the small amount at stake relative to the total estate value and the long history of litigation.

The court also approved the settlement on behalf of George Sipidias, a beneficiary under legal disability, finding it to be in his best interest.

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 sold its landscaping business assets to the defendant.

The defendant paid a portion on closing and executed a promissory note for the balance.

The defendant subsequently defaulted on the promissory note, alleging the plaintiff misrepresented the business's revenue and failed to deliver customer information.

The court rejected the defendant's unpleaded misrepresentation claims, finding the defendant failed to conduct proper due diligence and that the revenue decline was due to the defendant's own actions.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the $65,500 balance owing on the promissory note.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their limitation period defence in a dispute over a 2009 condominium purchase.

The respondent commenced the action in 2015 after being denied use of a second parking spot in 2013.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by failing to apply the presumption of knowledge under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, which shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove they did not know of the claim.

The appeal was granted and the limitation issue was remitted back to the Small Claims Court to be decided at trial.

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.

Following the dismissal of a defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought costs of approximately $19,667, arguing the implied denial rule made a reply unnecessary.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly plead the factual basis for rescission of a key agreement, contrary to Rules 25.07(3) and 25.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, because a different version of facts must be specifically pleaded in a reply.

Although the plaintiff successfully resisted summary judgment, the inadequate pleadings contributed to the motion being brought.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that neither party receive costs of the summary judgment motion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a commercial dispute arising from a failed business relationship and an Asset Allocation Agreement concerning several development properties.

The moving parties argued the claim was answered by the agreement or was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held the matter was not suitable for summary judgment because the evidentiary record disclosed numerous genuine issues for trial, including unpleaded rescission-related allegations and intertwined disputes across several related proceedings.

The motion was dismissed, and the court indicated a present intention to award no costs because the responding party had helped provoke the motion through deficient pleadings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a negligence action regarding the sale of a vehicle that had previously been in an accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error by the trial judge.

The court noted there was no evidence of negligence, as the respondent was unaware of the vehicle's accident history, and the case was pleaded solely in negligence rather than breach of contract.