3 total
The court dismissed the plaintiff's action against a process server on summary judgment due to a complete lack of damages.
The plaintiff, Sajjad Asghar, brought a motion for summary judgment against Dial and File Process Servers Inc., alleging fraud, breach of contract, and contravention of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, for unsuccessful service of a statement of claim and delayed return of documents.
The defendant sought summary judgment in its favour.
The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claims of fraud, breach of contract, or breach of the Consumer Protection Act, particularly noting the absence of damages.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the action as disproportionate given the minimal actual loss.
Appeal dismissed; HVAC rental company failed to bring onerous buyout and lien terms to consumer's attention.
The appellant HVAC rental company appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to return $17,334.09 to the respondent consumer.
The consumer had been forced to pay the amount to discharge liens registered against his home when he sold it, pursuant to a 10-year rental contract.
The trial judge found the buyout and lien provisions were onerous terms in a contract of adhesion that had not been brought to the consumer's attention, applying the Tilden principle.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.
Registered shared-services charge on land attracted the ten-year real property limitation period.
On a summary judgment motion arising from a mixed-use condominium shared services dispute, the court enforced a registered Shared Services Agreement requiring payment of shared project expenses.
The responding parties argued the claim was statute-barred under the two-year period in the Limitations Act, 2002 and alternatively relied on estoppel and alleged breach by the moving party.
The court held that the claim was governed by the ten-year limitation period in s. 23(1) of the Real Property Limitations Act because the amounts were secured by a lien and charged upon land.
After applying the Hryniak summary judgment framework and using Rule 20 fact-finding powers, the court found the amounts owing were proven, no estoppel was established, and summary judgment should issue for the full amount claimed.