Samuel Zakhour

The applicant, a condominium developer, sought declarations that the respondent purchaser breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) by failing to close, that the agreement was terminated, and that the deposits paid by the respondent were forfeited.

The respondent argued misrepresentation, claiming the property was not a new pre-construction unit as understood, but an already constructed and occupied model suite.

The court found the respondent in breach of the APS, noting inconsistencies in the respondent's sworn affidavits regarding the agreement's validity.

The court granted the applicant's request, ordering the forfeiture and disbursement of the deposits to the applicant.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent their neighbours from removing an existing fence and constructing a new one on a municipal laneway.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions (serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).

The court found no serious issue to be tried as the respondents had no current intention to interfere with the fence, especially after the City clarified its policy against new encroachments.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, though leave to amend the Statement of Claim was granted.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to add allegations of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and to plead the doctrine of *contra proferentem*.

The court denied the amendments related to good faith and fair dealing, finding them to be unsupported legal conclusions without material facts.

However, the court granted leave to add the *contra proferentem* plea, deeming it a point of law permissible under the rules, despite its questionable value and the absence of supporting facts, and finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The appellants, condominium owners, appealed a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

The injunction restricted the male appellant's communication and conduct due to a long-standing pattern of harassment, rude behavior, and interference with the condominium corporation's board and employees, in violation of the Condominium Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's jurisdiction, the appropriateness of the injunction under s. 134(3) of the Condominium Act, and the fairness of the proceedings despite the denial of an adjournment and the appellant's failure to file a proper affidavit.