Serena L. Rosenberg

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated July 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The plaintiffs, Christopher Morgis and Jo-Anne Morgis, brought a motion under Rule 48.14(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an extension of time to set their action down for trial and for a timetable for the completion of remaining steps.

The action arose from a dispute over the removal of personal property and chattels from a property sold under power of sale.

The court reviewed the lengthy procedural history, including duplicative actions, delays, and failures to comply with procedural requirements.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action were allowed to continue.

The motion was dismissed and the action was dismissed for delay.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents, Mandeep Dhatt and Kulwinder Dhatt, fixed at $8,200, and to the third party respondents, Jay Brijpaul and Re/Max West Realty Inc., Brokerage, fixed at $6,700.

Both amounts were inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The purchase price under the agreement of purchase and sale dated January 22, 2016, was to be reduced by the amount of these costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal brought by the defendants (appellants) challenging a trial judge's decision to grant specific performance of a real estate agreement and award substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in refusing multiple adjournment requests, including those based on medical grounds, and in granting specific performance for a property they claimed was not unique.

The Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding adjournments, citing the appellants' history of non-compliance with court orders and lack of diligence.

It also affirmed that specific performance is not an "extraordinary remedy" and that the trial judge correctly applied the factors for its award, including the property's unique qualities and the inadequacy of damages.

The substantial indemnity costs award was also upheld due to the appellants' litigation misconduct.

The appellants moved for a stay of a trial judgment ordering specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale and requiring them to vacate the property.

The trial proceeded largely in their absence after their requests for an adjournment were denied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while the appeal raised a serious question regarding the refusal to adjourn, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the respondents' undertaking not to deal with the property pending the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56 in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction and subsequent landlord‑tenant disputes.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged fraud and misrepresentation relating to a Seller Property Information Statement and sought extensive damages against the vendors and real estate agents.

The court found that the defendants met the threshold under Rule 56 due to outstanding unpaid costs awards and concerns that the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity or provide evidence supporting financial hardship.

Security for costs was therefore ordered, with different amounts depending on whether the plaintiff proceeded under the regular or simplified rules.