Raymond Di Gregorio

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The defendant claimed she did not sign the agreement and was unaware of its terms, particularly that it lacked a financing condition.

The court found the defendant ratified the agreement through her conduct, including paying a deposit, retaining counsel and a mortgage broker, and taking steps toward closing.

The defendant failed to repudiate the agreement before the closing date.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The plaintiff, Giuseppina Mari, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Mujeeb Sanjer and Genan Zamt, following a failed real estate transaction.

The court considered whether the original or amended agreement of purchase and sale should be used to assess damages, whether the plaintiff mitigated her damages, and what additional damages were recoverable.

The court held that the original agreement applied, awarded damages based on the difference between the original sale price and the ultimate resale price, and allowed certain additional costs.

The court also found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate her losses.

The Plaintiffs, unit owners in a retirement home development, brought a motion to add additional parties as defendants and amend their Statement of Claim.

They alleged that the original defendant, Pensio Property Management Group Inc., defaulted on rental income guarantees and, along with proposed individual defendants and Rentalis Insurance Company, Inc., made fraudulent misrepresentations.

They also sought to add Tripemco Insurance Group Limited, the broker, for negligence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments properly pleaded causes of action and that joinder of all parties was appropriate, promoting the convenient administration of justice despite arguments of prematurity.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendants for unpaid invoices totaling over $347,000 for labour and materials supplied to renovate a commercial space into a licensed cannabis-growing facility.

The defendants argued the work was deficient, claiming charge-backs, and asserted the parties had agreed to a fixed quote of $350,000.

The court found the plaintiff met its onus to prove entitlement to the invoiced amounts and dismissed the defendants' claims, noting a complete lack of documentary evidence to support the alleged deficiencies or the existence of a fixed quote agreement.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the amount of $347,020.40 plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff, Derek Martin, sued the Attorney General of Ontario, Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation, CBRE Limited, and Bee-Clean Building Maintenance for damages after slipping and falling in the John Sopinka Court House.

Martin alleged breach of the standard of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and/or negligence.

The parties agreed on damages but disputed liability and contributory negligence.

The court found that the defendants had implemented a reasonable system of inspection and cleaning, including regular patrols, mat placement, and wet floor signs, and that the small water spill was imperceptible.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding the defendants met the requisite standard of care.

Although not strictly necessary given the liability finding, the court also assessed contributory negligence, finding Martin 30% at fault for wearing shoes with significantly worn soles.

This is an appeal from an order directing the payment of funds held in court (net proceeds from a home sale) to the respondent in partial satisfaction of a summary judgment against Paige Imola.

The appellant, Luigi Imola, had transferred his interest in the home to his wife, Paige Imola, years prior to avoid creditors.

He argued for a resulting trust over half the funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's factual findings, including the appellant's intention to gift the property and his subsequent actions, rebutted any presumption of a resulting trust.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal claims by the motion judge in two actions against the Attorney General of Canada and individuals employed by Environment Canada.

The motion judge had ordered security for costs of $230,000 on a joint and several basis.

When the second instalment of $130,000 was not paid by the deadline, the motion judge dismissed the appellant's personal claims while granting the corporate plaintiffs an extension to post the security.

The Court of Appeal found this was a reversible error, holding that the motion judge failed to apply the same balancing exercise to the appellant as he did to the corporate plaintiffs, and that the factual inference that the appellant no longer wished to pursue his claim was not supported by the record.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for breach of non-solicitation and non-interference covenants contained in an Asset Purchase Agreement and Non-Disclosure and Non-Solicitation Agreement.

The motion judge found the non-solicitation clauses unreasonable and unenforceable.

On appeal, the court determined that even if the motion judge erred in finding the covenants unenforceable, the action could not succeed because the motion judge made a factual finding that there was no evidence the respondent solicited clients of the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.