Samy Ouanounou

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement arising from a defaulted loan and promissory note.

The defendants argued the underlying debt was statute-barred, the interest rate was criminal, and the individual defendant did not sign as a guarantor.

The court found the promissory note was a demand obligation, the limitation period was extended by the COVID-19 suspension and a valid email acknowledgment, and the individual defendant clearly signed as a guarantor.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, Darryl Friese, was successful at trial and sought costs on a partial-indemnity basis up to May 6, 2019, and substantial-indemnity thereafter, based on a Rule 49 offer made six days before trial.

The defendant, Roxana Arfa, argued for partial-indemnity costs and contested the quantum.

The court found that the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer did not attract substantial indemnity consequences as it was made less than seven days before trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial-indemnity costs throughout, adjusting the plaintiff's proposed partial-indemnity rate from 85% to the appropriate 66.66% of the actual rate.

Total costs, including fees, disbursements, and HST, were fixed at $16,800.

The plaintiff sold his property to the defendant, but the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The plaintiff subsequently resold the property for a lower price and sued for the difference in sale price and special damages.

The defendant counterclaimed for the return of her deposit, arguing that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not accepting her proposed amendment to the agreement.

The court found that the plaintiff was not obligated to accept the proposed amendment and had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his damages by relisting and selling the property.

The plaintiff was awarded damages and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.