3 total
The court granted summary judgment for $75,000 to plaintiffs for damages incurred from a failed real estate closing.
The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for $75,000, representing the cost incurred to extend the closing of a property they were purchasing, due to the defendants' failure to close on a related sale.
The defendants admitted breach of contract but disputed the remoteness and mitigation of damages.
The court applied principles of remoteness, particularly the Hadley v. Baxendale rule, and found that it was reasonably foreseeable for sellers to rely on proceeds from one sale to fund another, even if not explicitly communicated.
The court also found that the plaintiffs adequately mitigated their damages by paying the extension fee, which avoided potentially higher costs.
Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $75,000.
Commercial lease termination ruled invalid due to deficient notice and lack of evidence of subletting.
The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it was in compliance with its commercial lease and sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.
The landlord alleged the tenant breached the lease by subletting to towing companies and leaving debris outside the premises.
The court found no evidence of a sublease, noting the tenant merely allowed related towing companies to temporarily park vehicles.
The court also held the landlord's Notice of Termination was deficient under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act for lacking specificity.
The lease was declared to remain in full force and effect, and the landlord was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to sharp practices.
Motion for certificate of pending litigation dismissed as plaintiff's claim was essentially for unsecured debt.
The plaintiff sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property purchased by one of the corporate defendants.
The plaintiff alleged that funds owed to it for unpaid meat supplies were diverted by the debtor corporation's directors to fund the property purchase, claiming a constructive trust and tracing remedy.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff was essentially an unsecured creditor seeking to secure a debt rather than asserting a genuine interest in land, and that other remedies were available.
