Sam A. Presvelos

The vendor plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the purchaser defendant for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for $1,755,000, later amended to $1,700,000, but was unable to obtain financing by the closing date.

The court found the purchaser committed an anticipatory breach by communicating inability to close, the vendor accepted the repudiation, and the agreement was terminated.

The vendor appropriately mitigated damages by reselling the property for $1,650,290.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the vendor for damages of $78,906.49, with the purchaser's $70,000 deposit applied against that amount.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the commercial landlord, 1660841 Ontario Ltd., against the tenant, 2259778 Ontario Inc., for breach of lease obligations.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on either liability or damages, awarding the landlord $68,043.52 in damages and $5,000 in costs, plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

The decision applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in Hryniak v. Mauldin regarding summary judgment and the use of fact-finding powers under Rule 20.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff, James Pushie, in a property dispute with Carmela Guidarelli following the breakdown of their romantic and business relationship.

The court considers the admissibility of evidence previously ruled inadmissible, the scope of evidence at trial, the amendment of pleadings, and ongoing disclosure obligations.

The court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings, clarifies that evidence previously excluded at the application stage may be tendered at trial subject to relevance and admissibility, and sets out procedural directions for the conduct of the trial.

The plaintiff, First of Five Incorporated, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Recipe Unlimited Corporation and J.S.M. Corporation (Ontario) Ltd., from terminating a franchise agreement, lease, and sublease pending the outcome of litigation.

The court found that the plaintiff had a contractual right to renew the franchise, subject to certain conditions, and that the issues raised—including good faith, payment disputes, and the effect of the Arthur Wishart Act—were serious and required trial.

The court held that irreparable harm would result if the injunction were not granted, and the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a franchisee, brought an urgent motion seeking a stay of a prior decision denying injunctive relief and a mandatory injunction to restore possession of the franchise premises, pending leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The franchisor had locked out the plaintiff after the initial injunction motion was dismissed.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, determining that the Divisional Court, as the court to which leave to appeal was being sought, was the proper forum for such interim orders under section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating their franchise agreement.

The court noted that the agreement was set to expire in April 2024 with no automatic renewal clause.

Finding that an injunction would unfairly extend the agreement indefinitely pending litigation, and that the plaintiff could seek monetary damages, the court dismissed the motion.

The defendants in a franchise dispute moved for security for costs against the plaintiffs, alleging the plaintiffs' parent companies were in financial difficulty.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet the initial threshold of showing the specific plaintiff corporations had insufficient assets.

Furthermore, the court declined to exercise its discretion to order security because the defendants' counterclaim was inextricably connected to the main action, and the motion was brought with undue delay shortly before trial.

The appellants sought to appeal the dismissal of their application challenging outdoor gathering restrictions imposed as public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was initially dismissed for lack of public interest standing.

The Court of Appeal determined that the underlying application was moot because the challenged regulations were no longer in force.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal regarding Mr. Baber's private interest standing, finding that this issue was also moot and that a decision would not resolve any live controversy or bind future hypothetical challenges.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages in lieu of specific performance for a failed residential real estate transaction.

The appellants (vendors) argued that the respondents (purchasers) were not entitled to specific performance or damages in lieu after accepting the return of their deposit, and that the motion judge used the wrong appraisal date for calculating damages.

The Court of Appeal declined to entertain the deposit argument as it was a new issue on appeal.

However, the Court found that the motion judge erred by not using the actual sale price of the replacement property as the best indication of its value for damages calculation, instead relying on an earlier appraisal.

The appeal was allowed, and the damages awarded to the respondents were reduced from $150,000 to $56,000.

This case involved an application and cross-application concerning a commercial lease dispute.

The tenant, 2324702 Ontario Inc. (Remix), sought a declaration that its lease was in full force and effect and had been validly renewed.

The landlord, 1305 Dundas W Inc., sought termination of the lease and possession.

The court granted Remix relief from forfeiture for a single instance of non-payment of rent, finding the breach not grave and the landlord suffered no damages.

However, the court found that Remix failed to properly exercise its option to renew the lease, as its communications were equivocal and conditional, not a clear and unequivocal notice.

The court also rejected arguments of waiver and estoppel regarding the renewal.

Additionally, the court applied estoppel against the landlord, preventing it from retroactively claiming increased realty taxes based on a strict lease provision, due to its prior conduct of adopting the previous landlord's calculation method.

Ultimately, the lease was declared expired, and Remix was ordered to vacate the premises within 60 days, while also being ordered to pay outstanding rent increases and a reasonably allocated share of realty taxes.