Michael Farace

The defendant vendors brought a motion to permanently stay the action, alleging the plaintiff purchasers failed to promptly disclose a settlement agreement reached with the co-defendant brokers.

The court found that the agreement was a 'simple settlement' involving only a without-costs dismissal and a standard release, with no terms requiring the brokers' cooperation against the vendors.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the court held that the agreement did not entirely change the litigation landscape or the adversarial relationship between the parties, and therefore did not trigger the immediate disclosure requirement.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant homebuilder abandoned its application against the respondent warranty corporation shortly before the scheduled hearing, after the respondent had incurred significant costs preparing its defence.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the applicant unreasonably delayed abandoning the flawed application after an earlier injunction was dismissed.

The court agreed, finding the applicant's conduct in forcing the respondent to actively defend a doomed application warranted sanction.

Costs were fixed at $72,500 on a substantial indemnity scale.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interim injunction, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the applicant had filed inaccurate and misleading evidence regarding its history of chargeable conciliations, which justified an enhanced costs award.

However, the court found the respondent's claimed amount of $86,845.95 to be disproportionate to the complexity of the matter.

The court awarded the respondent $45,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant builder sought an interim injunction to prohibit the respondent statutory warranty corporation from conciliating delayed occupancy claims made by condominium purchasers.

The builder argued that the delays were caused by a municipal water supply issue and the COVID-19 pandemic, constituting an 'Unavoidable Delay', and that adverse conciliation decisions would irreparably harm its reputation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of irreparable harm and concluding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the statutory body to carry out its mandate to protect new home buyers.

The applicants sought a declaration that a right-of-way agreement over a mutual driveway was void, while the respondent brought a cross-application seeking rectification of the agreement and an injunction against interference.

The court found that the right-of-way agreement was valid despite lacking a formal enurement clause, as the intention to create an easement running with the land was clear.

The court granted the respondent's application for rectification of the agreement and the parcel registers to correct a drafting error regarding the commencement point of the right-of-way.

The court also declared the respondent's right to vehicular access and ordered the applicants to remove encroachments, including a shed and fence, that substantially interfered with the right-of-way.

The plaintiff hired the defendant general contractor for a home renovation on a cost-plus basis.

After becoming concerned about costs, the plaintiff hired a cost consultant who discovered a fraudulent invoicing scheme, including inflated sub-trade accounts and double-counted HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for civil fraud and to pierce the corporate veil to hold the sole shareholder personally liable.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the contractor committed civil fraud and the shareholder used the corporation as an instrument of fraud.

The defendants' counterclaim for unpaid invoices was largely dismissed due to lack of supporting documentation.