Miriam Vale Peters

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a real estate agreement's requisition deadline for off-title objections, specifically regarding the lawful use of a property described as a fourplex.

The appellant buyer raised timely objections about the property's legal use, which the respondent seller refused to address, leading to the transaction's failure.

The motion judge had erred by misinterpreting the deadline provision, deeming the objections untimely.

The Court of Appeal found the objections were timely and valid, as the property's lawful use as a fourplex could not be confirmed.

The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted the return of its deposit and damages.

Elke Kasanda, as Estate Trustee, sought directions for a trial of various issues, including the removal of co-trustees Helmut Sartarelli and D. Scott Murray, and disclosure of legal records from Murray concerning the deceased's estate planning and business sale.

The court dismissed the motion for disclosure of Murray's records, citing solicitor-client privilege and lack of evidence for waiver or exception.

The court adjourned the balance of the motion for directions, granting Elke leave to bring a separate motion to remove Helmut and Murray as Estate trustees, noting that such a motion does not require the same evidentiary threshold as a motion for directions under Rule 75.06.

Mediation was ordered, with costs to be borne by the Estate.

The applicant sought to enforce a right of first refusal to purchase a jointly owned property at its 2019 fair market value.

The respondent argued the right was never validly exercised and sought an immediate sale under the Partition Act.

The court reserved its decision on the merits of the right of first refusal but ordered the immediate sale of the property at current fair market value, noting that damages would be an adequate remedy if a breach of contract occurred.

The applicant estate trustee sought costs following a successful application to pass her accounts.

The respondent beneficiaries had raised over 300 objections, abandoning most at the hearing, and maintained unfounded allegations of theft and fraud against the trustee.

The court found the respondents' conduct reprehensible and ordered them to personally pay the trustee's costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $325,000.

The plaintiff, through her litigation guardian, sought the proceeds from the sale of a property she had previously transferred to her late son for nominal consideration.

She argued the transfer was subject to a resulting trust or was unconscionably procured.

The defendants, the son's estate trustees, argued it was a valid inter vivos gift.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidence of the plaintiff's solicitor clearly established she intended to gift the property to her son and fully appreciated the nature and effect of the transaction.

The plaintiff, 2651171 Ontario Ltd. ("265"), sued the defendant Patrick Brey ("Brey") and listing agent Grapevine Realty for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation after a real estate purchase agreement for a fourplex failed to close.

Brey counterclaimed for damages and cross-claimed against Grapevine, also initiating a third-party claim against his agent, Ryan Rogers.

Both 265 and Brey brought duelling motions for summary judgment. 265 sought the return of its $25,000 deposit and costs, and dismissal of Brey's counterclaim.

Brey sought to keep the deposit and damages.

The court dismissed 265's claims, finding that its objection regarding the property's lawful use as a fourplex was not raised within the contractual deadline and did not go to the root of title.

The court also found that 265's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was not properly pleaded.

Brey's motion for summary judgment and his counterclaim were granted.

Brey was awarded damages for direct loss on the sale and related expenses, including legal fees and interest on lost investment income, totaling $52,216.65, with the $25,000 deposit applied towards these damages.

The appellant contractor brought an action for breach of contract after the respondent condominium corporations exercised a contractual termination clause following months during which the respondents knowingly misled the appellant into believing the agreement would not be terminated.

The majority held that the duty of honest performance, as formulated in Bhasin v. Hrynew, precludes active deception and applies to the exercise of all contractual rights, including termination rights; the respondents breached that duty by failing to correct the false impression they had created, which was directly linked to performance of the contract.

A concurring minority agreed on liability but differed on the measure of damages, holding that the duty of honest performance vindicates the reliance interest rather than the expectation interest.

The dissent would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondents' conduct did not materially contribute to the appellant's mistaken belief and did not constitute the active dishonesty required for a breach of the duty of honest performance.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judge's award of damages was reinstated.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue and register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against three properties owned by the defendant, who was the common-law spouse of the plaintiff's deceased father.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of his father's holographic will, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's evidence weak and concluding there was no triable issue regarding the properties.

Furthermore, the court held that the equities did not favour granting a CPL, as an existing non-dissipation order provided adequate security and damages would be a suitable alternative remedy.

The applicant sought a declaration of entitlement to a two-thirds share of his deceased mother-in-law's home, arguing that a previous joint tenancy transfer to his late wife severed the tenancy and made it a matrimonial home.

The respondents, the deceased's grandchildren, argued the transfer was a resulting trust.

The court found the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust arising from the parent-to-child transfer.

The application was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded partial indemnity costs, reduced due to unnecessary separate representation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of a real estate agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant failed to close the transaction because he could not obtain financing.

The property was later sold to another buyer for a lower price.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the defendant breached the contract.

The plaintiffs were awarded $146,671.22 in damages for the difference in the purchase price, but their claim for carrying costs was dismissed as they were offset by rental income.

The plaintiff brought a motion for interim dependant support and exclusive possession of a home and vehicle from the estate of her deceased partner.

The defendant estate trustees, the deceased's daughters, opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff was not a 'spouse' under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court applied the Molodowich factors and found the plaintiff and the deceased had cohabited continuously for over three years and that she was financially dependent on him.

The court granted the plaintiff $2,000 per month in interim support and conditional interim possession of the home and vehicle.

The respondents, beneficiaries of the Estate of Toller James Montague Cranston, brought a motion for directions seeking the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) and the removal of the current Estate Trustee, Phillippa Baran.

The respondents alleged mismanagement, particularly concerning the sale of artwork against their wishes for in-specie distribution, and conflicts of interest.

The Estate Trustee opposed, arguing the motion was a procedural tactic and that she was acting in the estate's best interests.

The court found the administration adversarial and the Trustee in a conflict of interest, granting the motion to appoint an ETDL to ensure transparent and orderly administration.

The applicant, Rosemary Whelan, brought a motion to transfer a passing of accounts proceeding from Toronto to Ottawa.

The Estate Trustee, Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, and other interested parties opposed the transfer.

The court found the motion premature, noting that the application to pass accounts had just commenced in Toronto, and further procedural steps, such as filing objections and a hearing for directions, were pending.

The judge emphasized that a definitive determination of venue, particularly concerning the need for live witnesses, was not yet possible.

The motion for transfer was dismissed without prejudice, with costs reserved to the judge hearing the passing of accounts.

The applicant, Daryl Earl Selkirk, sought costs following a successful application to be appointed sole estate trustee of his mother's estate, with the respondent James Loris Selkirk removed.

The court addressed the allocation of costs, departing from the traditional estate litigation approach where costs are charged to the estate, and instead applied civil litigation principles ("loser pays") subject to public policy considerations.

The court found that James acted unreasonably in part by failing to provide clear accounts, leading to a conflict of interest.

Costs were ordered to be paid partially by James personally (or from his share of the estate) to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, with the balance of the applicant's costs paid by the estate on a full indemnity basis.

A portion of James's costs, deemed reasonably necessary for estate administration, was also ordered to be paid by the estate.

The respondent provided maintenance services to ten condominium corporations under two maintenance contracts.

The appellants terminated the winter maintenance contract but delayed notifying the respondent for several months to avoid jeopardizing completion of the summer contract.

The respondent performed extra unpaid work during this period in hopes of contract renewal.

The trial judge found the appellants breached the duty of honest performance by withholding termination information and accepting the unpaid work while knowing the contract would not be renewed.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the duty of honest performance does not require disclosure of termination decisions or restrict the exercise of contractual termination rights, and that the appellants' conduct, while potentially dishonourable, did not rise to the level of breach required under the good faith performance standard established in Bhasin v. Hrynew.

The appellants sought to review an order of Roberts J.A. refusing to extend the time to file a motion to review and set aside a security for costs order made by Laforme J.A., and to obtain a stay of both that order and the underlying summary judgment.

The appellants had defaulted under two mortgages and obtained summary judgment against them.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with Roberts J.A.'s decision, which was based on the appeal being wholly without merit and the justice of the case not warranting the orders sought.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants unreasonably opposed the motion.

The defendants argued they should receive costs or costs should be in the cause due to the plaintiff's delay.

The court found the plaintiff's requested costs reasonable, noting the defendants should have consented to the misnomer correction, and awarded the plaintiff $2,551.31 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, a snow removal contractor, sued the defendant condominium corporations and their property manager for breach of contract after they terminated a winter maintenance agreement.

Although the contract contained a 10-day termination clause, the defendants decided to terminate the contract in the spring but actively deceived the plaintiff into believing the contract would be renewed so he would continue performing summer maintenance and extra 'freebie' work.

The court applied the organizing principle of good faith and the duty of honest performance from Bhasin v. Hrynew, finding that the defendants' active deception constituted a breach of contract.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost profits, equipment lease costs, and an unpaid invoice.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to remove construction brackets and work platforms that encroached on the plaintiffs' property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as damages could compensate for the construction delay, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, who needed the platforms to complete their building.

The estate trustees brought a motion to appoint an independent solicitor as Special Trustee of a Henson Trust established for a beneficiary with severe autism, after the institutional trustee named in the will declined the appointment.

The beneficiary's father brought a cross-motion seeking to be appointed as Special Trustee.

The court found that the testator deliberately chose an institutional trustee over the father to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure professional expertise.

The court appointed the independent solicitor as Special Trustee and ordered no costs, finding the father acted in good faith.