Serdal Mikael Citak

The appellant vendor appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract claim arising from a failed residential real estate transaction after the respondent purchaser repudiated before closing.

The central issue was mitigation: although the defaulting purchaser bore the burden of proving failure to mitigate, the evidentiary record supported the motion judge's finding that the vendor failed to take reasonable steps to market the property, including by failing to produce records of any property-specific marketing efforts during the six-month resale period.

The court held that, given those factual findings, the motion judge was entitled to assess damages using the property's appraised value as of the breach date rather than the later resale price.

The court also rejected the argument that summary judgment became inappropriate because the appellant's own mitigation evidence was deficient.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

This is a costs decision following an interim parenting order motion.

The court previously granted an interim parenting arrangement providing the applicant father with weekend and mid-week parenting time.

The respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought no costs or alternatively costs in his favour.

The court found that neither party was successful on the motion, as neither proposed parenting schedule was adopted.

The court determined that success was divided due to the respondent's unreasonable and vacillating positions throughout the motion and the applicant's unsuccessful position stemming from family violence concerns involving his parents.

Accordingly, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

A motion for summary judgment brought by a home developer to recover damages arising from an abandoned agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant admitted non-completion but argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court found the plaintiff did not reasonably mitigate because it failed to disclose or identify specific marketing steps taken to resell the property, chose not to list on MLS, and delayed resale efforts.

The court assessed damages as of the breach date rather than the resale date, resulting in no damages owed after crediting the defendant's deposits.

The Body Shop Canada Limited (TBS Canada) sought various orders under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) following its UK parent's unexpected insolvency and cessation of financial support, which left TBS Canada with significant debts and operational challenges.

The requested relief included expanding the stay of proceedings, granting an administration charge, approving an indemnity and priority charge for directors and officers, directing the production of company records, and extending the time to file a proposal.

The court granted all requested orders, emphasizing the unusual and urgent circumstances, the necessity of the relief for TBS Canada's continued operations and restructuring efforts, and the consent of key stakeholders.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondents damages for illegal distress, conversion, and defamation.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to appear at the hearing and had previously shown no interest in proceeding, including not responding to motions to remove their counsel.

The court found that the appellants had not demonstrated any interest in prosecuting their appeal.

The plaintiffs, owners of a laundromat business, brought an action against their landlords for wrongful distraint, unlawful termination of their commercial lease, conversion, and defamation.

The landlords had seized the premises without notice, changed the locks, and posted notices accusing the plaintiff of fraud and embezzlement.

The court found the distraint and lease termination were unlawful, as a landlord cannot simultaneously terminate a lease and distrain property.

The court also found the landlords liable for conversion of the business and for defamation due to the false and malicious notices.

The plaintiffs were awarded $362,675 in total damages, including $50,000 for defamation and $50,000 in aggravated and punitive damages.

The defendants' counterclaim for alleged rental arrears was dismissed.

The trustee in bankruptcy disclaimed the bankrupt tenant's commercial lease.

The landlord subsequently drew down the full $2.5 million of a letter of credit provided as security under the lease.

The trustee brought a motion to determine the amount the landlord was entitled to draw.

The court held that upon disclaimer of the lease, the bankrupt's obligations to the landlord ceased, and the landlord was only entitled to draw $623,196.84 for its preferred claim of three months' accelerated rent under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The landlord was ordered to pay the balance to the trustee.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), the applicant sought approval for Transition Arrangements with its parent company, a Business Preservation Plan involving significant cash conservation measures (including suspension of pension, OPEB, and municipal tax payments), and Amended DIP Financing.

The court approved the motions, finding that the Transition Arrangements were fair and reasonable, and that the Business Preservation Plan and DIP financing were necessary to allow USSC to continue operations and pursue a restructuring solution, despite objections from the union and municipalities regarding the suspension of benefits and taxes.