Paul H. Mand

The plaintiffs, Qi Sen Li and Li Jin, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) or, alternatively, damages for breach of contract and return of a deposit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their initial evidentiary burden to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The decision highlighted deficiencies in the plaintiffs' evidence, particularly the reliance on an affidavit from a non-party to the contract (Li Jin) and the absence of evidence from the actual purchaser (Qi Sen Li) regarding key contractual elements such as deposit payment, waiver of conditions, and readiness to tender.

The plaintiff by counterclaim advanced $465,000 to the defendant religious corporation based on verbal assurances from its spiritual leader that the funds would be repaid after a new gurdwara was constructed.

The corporation argued the payments were either donations or statute-barred loans.

The court found the payments were not donations and no valid loan agreement existed, establishing unjust enrichment.

Although the claimant sought a remedial constructive trust, the court held a monetary award was sufficient.

Applying McConnell v. Huxtable, the court ruled the alternative claim for monetary restitution was protected by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, as the proprietary claim was viable and not an abuse of process.

The corporation was ordered to pay $465,000 in damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants, as purchasers, failed to close the transaction and pay the balance of the purchase price.

The court granted partial summary judgment on liability, finding the defendants breached the agreement of purchase and sale, as they offered no defence to the breach.

However, due to errors and confusion in the plaintiffs' evidence regarding damages and mitigation, the court directed the issue of damages to proceed to a summary trial under Rule 76.

The appellant appealed a costs decision made by a Superior Court judge dismissing an application for costs of approximately $100,000 relating to an arbitration dispute.

The arbitrator had awarded damages and costs to the appellant, which were subsequently confirmed by the Superior Court judge who awarded additional costs of $2,500 for the leave and confirmation motions.

The appellant then brought a new application seeking the full $100,000 in costs, which was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was solely as to costs and therefore required leave to appeal, which the appellant had not obtained.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property owned by a corporation, alleging he loaned $250,000 to his brother who signed a promissory note agreeing to place a mortgage on the property if he defaulted.

The brother defaulted and it was discovered he had no authority to bind the corporation.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the property and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, AMA Investments Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for mortgage default.

The defendants disputed the accounting and alleged that the plaintiff's counsel deliberately sabotaged their efforts to obtain refinancing.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the alleged sabotage, concluding that the allegations against counsel were unfounded.

However, the court disallowed a "Post Maturity Fee" claimed by the plaintiff, as it was not referenced in the loan agreement.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for a reduced amount of $313,736.45 plus fixed costs of $12,000.

The plaintiff, Kuldip Jhawer, sought summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendants, Harinder Singh and Rajwinder Aujla, which secured a $130,000 loan.

The defendants denied the mortgage's validity, claiming no funds were advanced and alleging fraud, and counterclaimed for set-off based on unrelated property transactions.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the mortgage claim, finding conclusive evidence of the loan's advancement, but dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike the counterclaim, ordering it to proceed to a separate trial as it was not intrinsically related to the mortgage and did not qualify for legal or equitable set-off.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a seized charge against the defendants' property.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but sought relief from accrued interest under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, arguing they could not make payments after the original lender's principal was arrested.

The court found the 13% interest rate was not excessive given the risk, and the transaction was not unconscionable as the defendants freely entered into it and failed to utilize the Mortgages Act to pay the debt into court when the lender could not be found.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff.

The moving party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing a motion to enforce a settlement agreement.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion with a single-sentence endorsement.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's failure to provide adequate reasons constituted an error of law, satisfying the test that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and that the issue is of general importance to the administration of justice.