Rod Refcio

The applicants sought specific performance after the respondent developer terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a new build condominium.

The parties initially agreed to a consent order restraining the sale of the property.

The respondent subsequently discovered the applicants had purchased another property shortly after entering the agreement and brought a motion to set aside the consent order and convert the application into an action.

The court found the non-disclosure relevant to the consent order and varied it to continue only pending a formal motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court also converted the application into an action, finding material facts in dispute and credibility issues regarding the uniqueness of the property and the parties' intentions that required a trial.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a claim by his late mother's estate.

The estate alleged the defendant failed to pay his mother a one-third share of crop income from a farm property as required by his late father's will.

The defendant argued that when he stopped farming, he and his mother agreed she would receive one-third of the rental income instead, which she accepted for 18 years.

The court found the estate's evidence relied on inadmissible hearsay from interested beneficiaries that lacked threshold reliability and corroboration under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

The court concluded the mother had agreed to or acquiesced in the changed payment arrangement and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained during a recreational non-contact hockey game, alleging that an opposing player intentionally or negligently checked him into the boards and that the league operator failed to provide a safe playing environment.

The court considered the negligence standard applicable to sporting events and the doctrine of implied consent to the inherent risks of hockey.

The evidence did not establish that the opposing player acted with intent to injure or in a reckless manner outside the ordinary risks of play.

The court further held that the league had appropriate rules, referees, and disciplinary systems, and that the plaintiff had signed a clear waiver releasing the league from liability for injuries arising from hockey participation.

The action was therefore dismissed.