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.

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.