S. Bojeczko

The applicant sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against a residential property after the respondents refused to grant a short extension for closing and terminated the agreement of purchase and sale.

The applicant claimed specific performance, arguing the property was unique and that the parties' prior flexible dealings raised an issue of estoppel regarding the strict enforcement of the closing date.

The court found triable issues regarding both the uniqueness of the property and estoppel, and concluded that the balance of convenience and equities favoured the applicant.

The motion to register the certificate of pending litigation was granted.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent their neighbours, the defendants, from parking their vehicles on the city boulevard in a manner that allegedly narrowed the access to the plaintiffs' shared driveway.

The plaintiffs argued this constituted a nuisance and infringed their property rights, seeking to apply a modified injunction test requiring only a strong prima facie case.

The court rejected the modified test, finding no substantial interference with property rights.

Applying the traditional RJR McDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were ordered to remove a parking curb from the boulevard.

Two related estate applications appeared on the Toronto Region Estates List seeking scheduling directions, including an application involving interim support from an estate.

The court declined to hear the application because the parties failed to file mandatory facta required by Rule 38.09(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the matter was not properly prepared for hearing.

The judge emphasized that counsel must adhere to the “3 Cs” — cooperation, communication, and common sense — when scheduling matters, particularly in light of the integration of Commercial List procedural expectations into the Estates List.

The court criticized the parties for wasting judicial time by booking hearings without proper preparation or agreement on procedural steps.

The application was adjourned sine die until counsel properly prepared the matter and demonstrated readiness for a hearing date.