Michael Lesage

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages after the defendant failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The property was originally sold for $1,450,000 but, following the breach, was resold for $1,120,000.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by including an 'as is' clause in the second listing.

The court rejected the defendant's expert evidence regarding the property's value and found the plaintiffs acted reasonably in mitigating their damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $250,442.08, representing the difference in sale price plus carrying costs and legal fees.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that her home insurance policy was in effect when a fire destroyed her property, and claiming damages of $398,958.94.

The insurer had terminated the policy for non-payment of premiums months before the fire.

The fire was intentionally set by the plaintiff's husband, who was living at the property.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the insurer properly terminated the policy according to its terms.

Furthermore, even if the policy had been in force, the intentional or criminal act exclusion would have barred coverage because the husband was an insured living in the household.

The plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and negligence were also dismissed.

The motion and action were dismissed.

The parties agreed on a further order addressing the request for relief pursuant to a previous endorsement.

The court signed the consent order and remained seized of the matter to address any potential non-compliance.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against two guarantors of a commercial loan after the borrowers defaulted.

The guarantors raised numerous defences, including alleged inducement, alleged oral representations that the guarantee would be removed after certain payments, discovery complaints, and arguments relating to receivership proceedings and an alleged forbearance agreement.

The court held that none of the defences raised a genuine issue requiring a trial and that the plaintiff had established its claim on a balance of probabilities.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate and granted judgment against the guarantors for their 30% liability under the guarantee together with contractual interest.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.