Paras Anand

A home builder brought a motion for judgment after noting the purchaser in default under Rule 19.05.

The purchaser failed to retain a solicitor and provide the builder with the solicitor's contact information as required by the Agreement of Purchase and Sale within the specified timeframe.

The builder terminated the agreement, forfeited the purchaser's deposits, and resold the property at a loss.

The court found the purchaser breached the APS and anticipatorily breached the closing obligations.

Judgment was granted for the shortfall between the original purchase price and resale price, plus additional expenses.

The court declined to award the contractual interest rate of 20% per annum, finding it to be a surprisingly onerous term that was not brought to the purchaser's attention, and instead applied the statutory prejudgment interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act.

This decision addresses a lien action under the Construction Act, where the plaintiffs allege a contract for services with the defendants for which they have not been paid.

The court reviews the parties' compliance with section 39 of the Act, the sufficiency of particulars and document inspection, and the need for a timetable to move the proceeding forward.

The court finds the defendants' response to the section 39 request sufficient, denies the plaintiffs' requests for further particulars and inspection, and orders the plaintiffs to plead and attend cross-examination.

Costs are awarded to the defendants.

The applicant father sought costs after a successful motion for temporary parenting time.

The respondent mother also sought costs.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle met the technical requirements for costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

While there was divided success on the underlying motion, the father was deemed the more successful party overall.

The court considered the parties' conduct, particularly the mother's unreasonable allegations and interference with parenting time, and awarded the father $6,000 in costs, payable monthly, dismissing the mother's costs claim.

The plaintiff homebuilder, Leanne Homes Limited (LHL), brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction against the defendant, Avtansh Singh, to prohibit him from selling his property or, alternatively, to have the sale proceeds held in trust.

LHL sought this relief in the context of a main action for damages arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctions from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General).

While a serious issue to be tried was found, the motion failed on the irreparable harm branch, as LHL did not quantify its damages or demonstrate that any judgment would be hollow, especially given the $170,000 deposit it held.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendant.

The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed.