Michael A. Wills

Purchasers sought return of a $150,000 deposit on a failed real estate transaction for a property in Kitchener, Ontario.

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale was dated July 22, 2024, with a purchase price of $2,840,000 and closing date of August 26, 2024.

The sale did not close.

The purchasers raised two grounds for return of the deposit: (1) the vendor's spouse did not provide the required matrimonial consent under the Family Law Act, and (2) a writ of execution against the vendor was not removed from title.

The court found both grounds valid and ordered return of the deposit with interest and costs.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association (APMA), supported by the City of Windsor and the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain a protest that had obstructed access to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario.

The protest, related to COVID-19 restrictions, caused significant economic harm to the automotive industry and disrupted the local community.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for injunctions and the modified test for statutory injunctions to enforce municipal by-laws.

The court found overwhelming evidence of serious issues to be tried (public nuisance, intentional interference with economic relations) and irreparable harm to the economy and community.

It concluded that the balance of convenience strongly favored granting the injunction, emphasizing that Charter rights to freedom of expression do not extend to unlawful acts that impede public access and cause substantial harm.

The defendant, Persico USA Inc., brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action and/or set aside service of the statement of claim, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection to Ontario and *forum non conveniens*.

The plaintiff, Savvas Koutros, an Ontario resident, sued for wrongful termination from his employment as a plant manager in Michigan.

The court found that the employment contract was made in Michigan, not Ontario, and that Persico did not carry on business in Ontario.

Consequently, the court determined there was no real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario and declined jurisdiction.

Alternatively, the court found Michigan to be the more convenient forum.

The motion was granted, and the action was stayed.

Following dismissal of a civil action for delay and failure to pay prior costs orders, the successful defendants sought costs of both the dismissal motion and the underlying action.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing the plaintiff’s conduct which significantly prolonged the proceeding over several years.

Numerous unsuccessful motions and appeals by the plaintiff, combined with unpaid prior costs awards, were found to have unnecessarily lengthened the litigation.

While the defendants claimed substantial partial indemnity costs, the court reduced the requested amounts as excessive and disallowed certain items.

Costs were fixed at $35,500 for the motion and action combined, payable within six months, in addition to earlier outstanding cost orders.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to her failure to pay five outstanding costs orders totaling over $7,700, and alternatively for delay.

The plaintiff, a law school graduate acting in person, argued she was impecunious and that the delay was justified by concurrent proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal.

The court rejected the impecuniosity claim due to lack of evidence and found the plaintiff had flagrantly ignored court orders and failed to advance the action for over seven years.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed for both failure to pay costs and inexcusable delay.