Ryan John Atkinson

The court considered whether the buyers were entitled to repudiate a real estate purchase agreement due to a storm sewer easement registered on title, and the resulting damages.

The court found the buyers were not entitled to repudiate, as the easement did not materially affect the use of the property, and awarded damages to the sellers, including the forfeited deposit and consequential losses.

The appellants sought a panel review of a single judge's decision dismissing their motion for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The underlying action against Dominion Lending Centres Inc. and others for alleged mortgage fraud was dismissed by the Superior Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the single judge dismissed the motion solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the single judge explicitly found the grounds of appeal devoid of merit and the lower court's reasons cogent.

The motion for panel review was dismissed with costs.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a motion brought by the Furneys under Rule 59.06 to set aside or vary the dismissal of their appeal and for an extension of time.

The court previously dismissed the Furneys' motion, finding it to be an abuse of process.

The respondents were awarded full indemnity costs.

The court also issued a prohibition order preventing the Furneys from filing further materials in this matter without satisfying all costs awards and obtaining leave of the court, due to their continued abuse of process.

The moving parties brought a motion under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside or vary the dismissal of their appeal and for an extension of time.

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed their appeal.

The court found that Rule 59.06 is for rare circumstances and not for relitigation of matters already determined.

The moving parties' allegations regarding their lawyer's representation were not accepted and did not alter the uncontroverted fact of their mortgage default.

The motion was deemed an abuse of process, being the latest in a series of unsuccessful attempts to delay enforcement of their mortgage responsibilities.

The motion was dismissed, and the responding parties were awarded costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court declined to make a Rule 2.1 order.

The Mortgagee Plaintiffs sought summary judgment to enforce a syndicated loan and mortgage against the Joseph-Walker Parties, who defaulted.

The Joseph-Walker Parties alleged fraud by other defendants and, later, by the Mortgagee Plaintiffs themselves, and sought to adjourn the motion.

The court denied the adjournment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the Mortgagee Plaintiffs' claims or the fraud allegations against them.

Summary judgment was provisionally granted for the Mortgagee Plaintiffs, including payment of the outstanding loan amount, possession, and writs of possession, conditional on adding seven non-party mortgagees to the action to ensure they are bound by the order.

The court also addressed the consolidation of related proceedings and the principles of partial summary judgment.

The Plaintiff, TPine Financial Services Inc., brought a motion for the continuation of an interim Mareva Order and leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the Caledon Property.

The Plaintiff alleged a fraudulent invoicing scheme by the Mareva Defendants, leading to the advancement of $7.5 million, part of which was used as a $3.65 million deposit for the Caledon Property, held by the Hanjra Defendants.

The Hanjra Defendants had failed to comply with previous orders to pay these deposit monies into court.

The court granted the Plaintiff's motion, ordering the Hanjra Defendants to pay the $3.65 million into court and granting leave to register the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the Plaintiff's claim to the specific fund and an interest in the property.

Subsequently, the parties reached a settlement agreement where the Hanjra Defendants would pay the sum into court within 30 days, leading to the discharge of the CPLs and abandonment of their appeal.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 for the motion, payable by the Hanjra Defendants.

The appellant, TS Pharmaceuticals Ltd., appealed the dismissal of its motion for damages against the court-appointed Receiver, A. Farber & Partners Inc. TS alleged the Receiver failed to use "best efforts" to maintain a Health Canada cannabis licence, which lapsed, leading to the termination of a Share Purchase Agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Receiver had no positive obligation or authority to maintain the licence, nor could it have done so in the short timeframe between the SPA execution and licence expiry.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the purchaser against the Receiver for alleged breaches of an Asset Purchase Agreement, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the Receiver.

The Receiver claimed $134,188.17, while the purchaser argued for $60,000.

The court deducted the Receiver's own non-legal professional staff time and reduced the overall amount based on proportionality and reasonableness, fixing the costs payable by the purchaser at $105,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a mortgage commitment's interest rate provision breached section 8 of the Interest Act.

The provision increased the interest rate from 8.25% to 18% in the final month of the term unless the mortgage was renewed or discharged.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the interest rate increase was triggered by the passage of time rather than default, and therefore did not violate the Interest Act.

The appellant was awarded judgment reflecting the 18% interest rate for the final month and thereafter, along with costs.

The moving party purchaser sought damages or a $350,000 abatement of the purchase price, alleging the court-appointed Receiver breached an Asset Purchase Agreement and a Share Purchase Agreement by failing to act in good faith and use best efforts to preserve a cannabis license.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Receiver had no authority over the excluded cannabis assets under its appointment order, the purchaser failed to discover the license's expiry date during its own due diligence, and the Receiver fully complied with its contractual obligations to negotiate and assist with a change of control.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the calculation of interest on a mortgage.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, ordering judgment in an amount that accounts for interest at 8.25% for the first six months of the mortgage term and 18.00% for the seventh month and thereafter.

Written reasons were to follow.

The parties settled a construction lien dispute regarding painting work for $30,000, but could not agree on costs.

The defendants' offer to settle did not explicitly mention costs.

The plaintiff sought costs up to the date of the offer's acceptance under Rule 49.07(5)(a), while the defendants argued they were entitled to costs because the plaintiff delayed acceptance until after motion preparation was done.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, as the offer was never withdrawn and the defendants were not successful in the litigation.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,500 in costs.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of the mortgaged property and payment of the mortgage debt.

The defendant mortgagor opposed, arguing she was duped into the mortgage by third parties who were acting as agents for the plaintiff, and sought leave to issue a third-party claim.

The court found no evidence of an agency relationship between the plaintiff and the alleged conspirators, and granted summary judgment as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court denied leave to issue the third-party claim, finding it would cause undue delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement agreement and the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff argued the defendants' costs claims were excessive.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $45,000 to Leggett and $3,500 to Garlock.

The plaintiff, 1207717 Ontario Inc., and defendants, Leggett & Platt Canada Co. and Garlock of Canada Ltd., brought motions and cross-motions to enforce a settlement agreement concerning environmental contamination.

Leggett sought a declaration that the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was complete and dismissal of the action and crossclaim. 1207717 Ontario sought further groundwater testing, arguing the RAP was incomplete.

The court interpreted the settlement agreement, finding that the specified two-year monitoring period and "stable or decreasing" contamination standard had been met by Leggett's consultant's reports.

The court rejected 1207717 Ontario's arguments for further testing or that Ministry of Environment standards were relevant, as these were not part of the contract.

Leggett's motion was granted, and 1207717 Ontario's cross-motion was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the action and crossclaim without costs.

The plaintiff sought to continue a temporary certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property, alleging mortgage fraud and lack of notice regarding a foreclosure judgment.

The court reviewed a more complete record and found that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff had obtained the second mortgage, defaulted on payments, was aware of the foreclosure action, and had retained counsel regarding the claim and subsequent notice to vacate.

The court concluded that any claim the plaintiff had to an interest in the property was extinguished by the 2016 foreclosure judgment.

The motion to continue the CPL was denied, and the temporary CPL was discharged.

This costs endorsement followed a successful application by the Respondent concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement, entitling the Respondent to a $100,000 holdback.

The Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $24,050.52.

The Applicants, despite being unsuccessful, sought $7,000.00 in costs, alleging unnecessary steps by the Respondent.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, awarded the Respondent $12,000.00 in fees plus disbursements.

The judge noted that the time and effort expended by both sides was disproportionate to the amount in issue and that both parties adopted a "scorched earth" attitude by raising extraneous issues.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendant for a defaulted $250,000 mortgage.

The court granted judgment for the principal debt, nine missed payments, and an additional three months of interest under Section 17 of the Mortgages Act, totaling $274,999.96.

Pre-judgment interest was awarded at the statutory rate of 2% per annum, and post-judgment interest at 3% per annum.

The court dismissed claims for higher contractual interest rates, service fees, legal fees without proper proof, a writ of possession, and possession as chargee/mortgagee.

The decision also addressed the problematic nature of lawyer affidavits based on file review in summary judgment motions.

Costs were fixed at $9,000.00 for the plaintiffs.

This application concerned the interpretation of a settlement agreement regarding a $100,000 holdback amount.

The applicants (mortgagors) argued that their registration of additional security was satisfactory, and the respondent (mortgagee) could not unreasonably reject it.

The respondent contended it had sole and absolute discretion to determine satisfaction with the additional security.

The court agreed with the respondent's interpretation, finding that the discretion extended to the adequacy of the security, not just its registration.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims for misrepresentation against the respondent but found no misrepresentations by the applicants.

The holdback amount was ordered to be released to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his 16-year-old counterclaim for solicitor's negligence due to delay.

The appellant argued the Master applied the wrong rule, made palpable and overriding errors regarding his explanation for the delay and the resulting prejudice, and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his financial situation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding the Master correctly applied Rule 48.14, made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the delay or prejudice, and that the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test.