Ralph Cuervo-Lorens

The appellants wrongfully repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property in Burlington.

The vendor resold the property approximately two months after relisting it through the same agent.

The motion judge granted summary judgment ordering the appellants to pay the difference in purchase price and related expenses, finding the vendor acted reasonably in mitigating damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the resale steps were unreasonable and challenging the price differential.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision.

The appellants acknowledged they added the broker and agent as parties solely to obtain disclosure of their file and market data, providing no legitimate basis to maintain the action against them.

The respondent Ministers brought a motion to strike three affidavits filed by the applicants in a judicial review application concerning a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine facility.

The court struck the expert affidavit of Wendy Shearer, applying the general rule that evidence not before the original decision-maker is inadmissible on judicial review.

The court declined to strike the two affidavits sworn by the applicants themselves, finding they were not tendered as expert evidence but rather set out the factual basis for their arguments.

The motion was granted in part.

A junior mining company sued Ontario for damages after its relationship with a First Nation collapsed and its exploration program stalled.

The plaintiff argued that the Crown's constitutional duty to consult and related obligations under the Mining Act extended to protect the company as a third-party mining claimant.

The court held that the honour of the Crown and any associated fiduciary or consultation duties run to Indigenous communities, not to mining proponents, and do not create an enforceable private law duty of care in favour of the plaintiff.

Applying the Anns/Cooper framework, the court further found that neither the legislative scheme nor the limited interactions between the parties established sufficient proximity.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.

The Town of Georgina brought a motion for an interim restraining order to prevent the respondents from dumping fill on a former pit property without a permit under the Town's Site Alteration By-law.

The respondents argued they were importing fill to rehabilitate the land pursuant to a site plan under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The court granted the interim restraining order, finding a serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm to the respondents if delayed, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Town and the province, as the corporate owner of the land had been dissolved and the property was vested in the Crown.

A real estate brokerage sued for payment of commission arising from the sale of a commercial property after the vendor refused payment.

The vendor argued that the listing agreement had been cancelled, that the brokerage did not introduce the purchaser during the listing period, and that the commission had effectively been paid through other benefits.

The vendor also counterclaimed alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence by the broker for failing to document an alleged price adjustment agreement that led to related litigation.

The court found that the broker introduced the purchaser during the currency of the listing agreement and that the sale agreement was executed within the holdover period, entitling the brokerage to commission.

The court rejected the alleged cancellation, rejected claims of payment “in kind,” and dismissed the counterclaim due to lack of credible evidence.