Scott Beattie

The applicants agreed to purchase a property and paid a $40,000 deposit.

The transaction failed to close on the scheduled date due to existing encumbrances on title, including mortgages and a caution from a previous failed sale.

The respondent, who had assumed the seller's rights, attempted to extend the closing date but was unable to provide clear title.

The applicants refused further extensions and demanded the return of their deposit.

The court found that the respondent was not in a position to convey substantially what the applicants contracted for, as the property remained subject to encumbrances.

The court declared the respondent in breach of the purchase agreement and ordered the return of the deposit to the applicants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a further extension of time to deliver their affidavits of documents and an expert report on damages in a $50 million action against the government.

The defendants did not oppose the extension but sought terms requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs and pay costs thrown away due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with previous scheduling orders.

The court granted the extension but ordered the plaintiffs to post $230,000 in security for costs and pay $20,000 in costs thrown away, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to commit the necessary resources to advance their claims efficiently and had breached court orders.

The defendant, a federal standing Crown agent, moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis of prosecutorial immunity and failure to plead sufficient facts for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiffs alleged misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution arising from the defendant's involvement in an environmental investigation and subsequent prosecution.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, as the jurisprudence on whether other torts can be brought against prosecutors remains unsettled.

The court also found the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient material facts to support the elements of malicious prosecution.