Mbong Elvira Akinyemi

The applicants successfully obtained an order for forfeiture of a $150,000 deposit due to the respondent's breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The respondent sought to avoid costs by pleading impecuniosity.

The court rejected the impecuniosity plea, finding it unsubstantiated and noting the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, including failing to pursue a claim against her real estate agent and rejecting a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the applicants, fixed at $17,100.

The applicants (sellers) sought declarations that the respondent buyer breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property and that the $150,000 deposit be forfeited.

The buyer argued she did not properly sign the APS due to her agent's conduct (non est factum, undue influence) and sought to convert the application to an action to add her agent.

The court found the buyer had indeed signed and breached the APS, rejecting her defences as not vitiating the contract between the buyer and sellers.

The court ordered the forfeiture of the deposit, finding it was not disproportionate to the sellers' damages and that retaining it was not unconscionable.

The deposit held in trust was ordered released to the sellers.

The applicants were given a deadline to decide on pursuing further damages.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing his appeal and confirming the Refugee Protection Division's decision to deny him refugee protection.

The applicant alleged a fear of state persecution in Nigeria based on his nationality and political opinion as a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's decision was reasonable, concluding there was insufficient evidence of a forward-looking risk and no error in the credibility or risk assessments.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The birth mother (D.D.) appealed the dismissal of her application for an openness order regarding her Crown ward son (S.S.), who had been adopted in 2017.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The court upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the birth mother lacked standing to seek an openness order post-adoption under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court also ruled that new issues concerning the validity of the adoption, not raised in the original application, could not be introduced for the first time on appeal.

CAST's motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, and D.D. was ordered to pay costs due to her unreasonable litigation conduct.