Myle Nguyen

This costs endorsement arises from a failed real estate transaction that proceeded to a two-day summary trial under the simplified procedure.

The plaintiff, Anthony Gyimah, sought rescission and damages after the transaction with the Church failed to close due to a dispute over key delivery.

The Church counterclaimed for specific performance or damages.

The court found both parties partially successful but awarded the plaintiff the majority of his claim, with a small damages award to the Church.

The court considered the conduct of both parties in determining costs, ultimately awarding the plaintiff partial indemnity costs against the Church, and substantial indemnity costs to Mr. Lehoux, but in a reduced amount.

The court also addressed the appropriate rate and period for prejudgment interest.

The appellant, Zeljko Rajic, appealed a decision denying his entitlement to post-judgment interest following a settlement agreement with his former counsel and their law firm.

The Court of Appeal held that post-judgment interest under section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act does not apply where no court order for payment has been made, and the settlement did not expressly provide for such interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The decision concerns a failed real estate transaction in which the plaintiff, Anthony Gyimah, sought rescission and damages after refusing to close on a property purchase due to a dispute over the delivery of keys.

The court found that the plaintiff breached the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) by refusing to close, as the keys were made available for pickup in Cochrane and there was no contractual requirement for delivery to Toronto.

The court awarded the defendant Church damages of $219.61 and ordered repayment to the plaintiff of the balance of funds held in trust, with interest earned, totaling $70,142.23.

The case against the Church’s lawyer, Andre Lehoux, was dismissed.

The defendants, the City of Orillia and two officials, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Balmoral Developments Hilda Inc.'s action.

Balmoral also sought summary judgment in its favour on specific issues.

The case involved two main disputes: (1) whether By-Law 2014-75, which imposed conditions on Balmoral's condominium exemption application, was lawfully enacted; and (2) whether the barrier-free accessibility requirements imposed by the City were lawfully imposed.

The court found that the City acted in bad faith by imposing unauthorized conditions on the exemption certificate, striking those conditions.

However, the court dismissed Balmoral's challenge to the barrier-free requirements, finding the issue moot and a collateral attack on a decision not appealed.

The matter of damages was reserved for a future trial or disposition.

The moving party, a third-party property manager, sought summary judgment to dismiss claims for contribution and indemnity brought by the defendant plumbing company.

The defendant had settled property damage claims with the plaintiff tenants following a flooding incident.

The third party sought to amend its pleadings to rely on a limitation of liability clause in the commercial leases, which barred claims against the landlord and persons for whom the landlord is legally responsible.

The court allowed the amendment, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The court then interpreted the lease and concluded that the third party, as the operator of the building automation system, fell within the category of persons for whom the landlord was legally responsible.

Because the plaintiffs were barred from suing the third party directly, the defendant could not claim contribution and indemnity.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.