Nicholas J. Cartel

The appellant, Previn Homes, appealed a lower court decision that found it breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The core issue was whether the parties could contractually extend the closing date outside the strict framework of the Tarion Addendum, which governs new home warranties.

The Court of Appeal found that non-compliant amendments to critical dates under the Tarion Addendum are voidable at the purchaser's option, not automatically invalid.

Since the purchaser (Ingarra) did not void the agreed-upon extension, the vendor (Previn Homes) was entitled to terminate the agreement when the purchaser failed to close on the extended date.

The appeal was allowed, dismissing the purchaser's application.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's orders relating to the division of net family property and spousal support in a family law matter.

The principal issues were: (1) whether the trial judge erred in discounting a $5,000,000 promissory note by 90% for equalization purposes, where the note was signed on behalf of the appellant's holding company in favour of his parents for a condominium project loan; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in awarding indefinite spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld both decisions, finding that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding contingent liabilities and exercised reasonable discretion in awarding indefinite spousal support based on the respondent's health issues and the compensatory nature of support.

This application concerned the interpretation of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) and its Tarion Addendum after a residential property transaction failed to close.

The court found that the vendor breached the APS by failing to deliver an Occupancy Permit by the firm closing date and by purporting to terminate the agreement based on invalid interim closing dates.

The court emphasized the consumer protection objectives of the Tarion Addendum, requiring strict adherence to its provisions for changing critical dates and setting delayed closing dates.

Attempts by counsel to informally extend closing dates were deemed voidable by the purchaser and ineffective against the statutory framework.

The purchaser was declared not in breach, and the vendor's termination was invalid.

Remedies for specific performance or damages were deferred to a later proceeding.

Paul Bliss, a former CTV reporter, sued CTV Television Network Ltd. and Bell Media Inc. for defamation following news broadcasts detailing sexual harassment allegations against him.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute arose under a collective agreement.

The court found that while the initial broadcast might relate to employment obligations, subsequent broadcasts with salacious details went beyond workplace issues and into general news reporting.

Therefore, the defamation claim did not arise under the collective agreement, and the court retained jurisdiction.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Minority shareholders in a family-owned company appealed a trial judgment dismissing their oppression and conspiracy claims.

The appellants alleged that the director diverted property interests to his benefit through a series of transactions and that respondents conspired to allow the company to default on a mortgage so that a controlled company could acquire the property.

The trial judge rejected all claims, finding that the appellants' conduct was unclean and that the director's actions were justified to protect the company's interests.

The appellants failed to establish reasonable expectations or damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff invested in a property with the defendant Esmail, creating a trust relationship.

Esmail failed to keep proper accounts, transferred the property to his wife Yasmin to defeat creditors, and eventually sold the property without properly accounting to the plaintiff.

The solicitor acting on the sale, Jiwa, ignored the trust declaration and failed to protect the plaintiff's interests.

The court found Esmail and Yasmin liable for breach of trust and fiduciary duty, and Jiwa liable for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding damages to the plaintiff.