S.A. Rosen

Following a previous ruling referring their dispute over a failed new home purchase to arbitration, the parties were unable to agree on an arbitrator.

The moving parties brought a motion in writing to have the court appoint their preferred candidate, Mr. Richler, citing his lower fees and capped costs.

The responding party failed to respond to the motion.

The court exercised its power under section 10 of the Arbitration Act to appoint Mr. Richler, conditional on his continued willingness to accept the appointment.

The plaintiff, an elderly woman acting through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim and to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the defendant's property.

The plaintiff alleged she made over $75,000 in loans to the defendant, her neighbour, which were not repaid.

After a demand letter was sent, the defendant transferred her property to her son for nominal consideration and registered a new mortgage.

The court granted the unopposed motion to amend the claim.

The court also granted the motion for a CPL, finding that the transfer bore several badges of fraud, establishing a prima facie case of a fraudulent conveyance, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The purchasers of a new home terminated their agreement of purchase and sale after the builder failed to complete construction by the outside closing date.

The builder disputed the termination, claiming the purchasers had verbally agreed to an extension, and brought an application for specific performance.

The purchasers brought a motion to stay the application and refer the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the Tarion Addendum.

The court applied the competence-competence principle and found it was at least arguable that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

The builder's application was stayed and the matter referred to arbitration.