Rod R. Refcio

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a home in Ilderton, Ontario.

The defendants refused to close, alleging the home was heavily saturated with cigarette smoke that was not disclosed.

The court found no reliable evidence of smoke, no representations made by the plaintiff regarding smoking, and no objectively reasonable danger posed by any smoke present.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding damages of $280,612.08 plus prejudgment interest, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

Following a settlement of a mortgage action resulting in a consent judgment, the defendants sought a mortgage payout statement to discharge the mortgage and obtain new financing.

The plaintiff provided a payout statement that included additional legal fees and costs incurred prior to judgment, as well as a holdback amount.

The defendants objected to these additional amounts, arguing that all legal costs and fees incurred prior to judgment were addressed and adjudicated in the consent judgment.

The court found that the consent judgment included all legal costs incurred up to the date of settlement and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim additional pre-judgment legal costs or a holdback amount as a precondition to discharge.

This appeal arose from a failed residential real estate transaction where the appellant purchasers breached the agreement.

The respondent vendors obtained summary judgment for damages, which the appellants challenged, arguing that the vendors failed to mitigate damages by selling the property at an improvident price and that the matter was unsuitable for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that a trial was unnecessary.

The appellate court found that the appellants failed to satisfy their onus to establish improvident sale, noting their failure to adduce expert evidence or cross-examine on affidavits during the summary judgment motion.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found Trevor Bond personally guaranteed a mortgage debt and challenged the calculation of the amount due, including a "bonus" interest, and the adequacy of notice for power of sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings.

The court affirmed that objective contract interpretation applied to the personal guarantee, that the bonus interest was properly included based on the agreement, and that adequate notice for power of sale was provided.

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 applicant, a residential tenant, was evicted following an order by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

She sought the return of her personal property and a dog from the landlord.

The court ordered the landlord to allow the applicant to retrieve her personal property, as distraint for unpaid rent is not permitted in residential tenancies.

The court declined to order the return of the dog, directing the applicant to pursue the matter in Small Claims Court.

Due to the applicant's history of litigation, the court ordered that she may not commence further proceedings without leave, and issued a notice considering the dismissal of her judicial review application as frivolous and vexatious.

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 court issued an addendum to its previous written reasons to correct an arithmetic error regarding the overpayment of rent and utilities, setting the correct sum at $63,142.18.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $4,613.10 for the June 2019 rent overpayment.

The court clarified that the return of the deposit would be decided under the terms of the lease and would not be returned at this point.

This motion concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease between a pharmacy (applicant) and a medical centre (respondent) regarding rent calculation.

The applicant argued that rent should be based on the actual measured square footage of the premises, while the respondent contended it was a fixed amount regardless of space.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, including the parol evidence rule, to determine the parties' mutual objective intention.

The applicant also sought reimbursement for overpaid utility charges and the return of a security deposit.

The landlord appealed a trial decision finding that the tenant properly terminated a residential lease and that the landlord was not entitled to charge administrative fees as part of common area and maintenance (CAM) expenses under a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant provided notice in the manner required by the written terms of the lease, and that there was no express or implied term authorizing the landlord to unilaterally charge administrative fees.

The trial judge's interpretation of the lease was subject to deference and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The respondent sought costs, including costs against the applicant's counsel personally, following the dismissal of the applicant's unmeritorious claim.

The Divisional Court declined to order costs against counsel, noting that such awards are to be rare.

The court fixed global costs, including costs of the initial application, motion for leave, appeal, and the present motion, at $22,500 payable by the applicant's estate.

A dissenting judge would have awarded $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis jointly and severally against the estate and the applicant's counsel.

The moving party sought costs against the responding party's solicitor personally and against the responding party's estate following the dismissal of the underlying application.

At the costs hearing, the solicitor attempted to represent both himself and the estate.

The Divisional Court identified a clear conflict of interest, as the solicitor's arguments against personal liability were adverse to the estate's interests.

The court adjourned the motion, directing the solicitor and the estate's representative to obtain independent legal advice.

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.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion arising from an unpaid construction subcontract for fire suppression work, seeking principal, contractual interest, collection costs, and personal liability against corporate officers for breach of trust.

The court held the corporate defendant was bound by the written commercial contract, including a 2% per month compounded interest clause and recovery of collection costs, and distinguished the authorities concerning unsigned or hurried standard-form agreements.

Applying the statutory trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act, the court found the contractor had received full payment on the project, failed to account for trust funds, and breached the trust owed to the subcontractor.

The officers knew or ought reasonably to have known of the breach and were held jointly and severally liable.

Additional post-February 5, 2015 costs of $10,000 were fixed in the plaintiff's favour.