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 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, 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.