Seta Linda Boyadjian

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Bennington Financial Corp. against 2724112 Ontario Inc. and Christopher Graham for amounts owing under a commercial equipment lease.

The court found that the defendants' defences were fully answered by the plaintiff's evidence, including admissions of payment and execution of the lease, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court reserved on interest and costs, inviting written submissions.

The plaintiff vendor and defendant purchaser entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

On the scheduled closing date, the purchaser advised she could not close due to lack of financing.

The vendor sent a letter stating this was an anticipatory breach and, unless they heard otherwise by end of day, would declare the agreement null and void and forfeit the deposit.

The purchaser's daughter confirmed the lack of financing.

The vendor subsequently resold the property at a loss and sued for damages.

The court found the vendor clearly and unequivocally accepted the anticipatory breach through its letter and subsequent conduct, entitling it to forfeiture of the deposit and damages for the resale loss.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for the recovery of a deposit paid under an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The plaintiff, Michael Asumeng, failed to secure financing by the closing date, leading to the termination of the APS by Cachet Estate Homes (Orangeville) Inc. and forfeiture of his $43,826.19 deposit.

The court found no valid cause of action against the individual defendant, Marilyn Rendine, an employee of Cachet Orangeville.

The court determined that Cachet Orangeville acted in good faith, properly terminating the APS and retaining the deposit due to the purchaser's repeated breaches.

Summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim and awarding costs to the defendants.

This decision addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion brought by the Law Society of Ontario against Rosemary Cremer, which Cremer successfully defended.

The Law Society did not dispute Cremer's entitlement to costs but argued for a partial indemnity basis and a lower amount.

The court found that the Law Society's motion, though unsuccessful, was not unreasonable and did not warrant punitive costs.

While Cremer claimed $55,778.43 in partial indemnity costs, the court deemed this excessive and disproportionate to a focused summary judgment motion, noting that counsel's extensive time expenditure might be more relevant to the trial on the merits.

The court awarded Cremer $46,000 in partial indemnity costs, all inclusive.

The plaintiff sued the Law Society of Ontario for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and infliction of mental injury.

The Law Society moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, protected by statutory immunity under the Law Society Act, or constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the Law Society's motion, finding that the plaintiff's claims were not statute-barred, as the limitation period did not begin until her beneficial ownership of funds was confirmed by court order.

The court also found genuine issues requiring trial regarding statutory immunity and declined to strike portions of the claim as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were minor and subject to the MIG funding limit, as there was no compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, claiming it exacerbated her pre-existing psychiatric issues and chronic pain.

The insurer denied the benefit, arguing her activities of daily living had not substantially changed.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's normal life had changed due to a prior 2011 accident and family conflicts, not the 2013 accident.

Despite an aggravation of her chronic pain, she continued to engage in substantially all her pre-accident activities, such as attending workshops, driving, and socializing.

The application was dismissed, and expenses were awarded to the insurer.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for an in-home assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer failed to respond to the treatment plan within the required 10 business days.

The appellant argued this failure required the insurer to pay for the assessment regardless of its merits.

The Director's Delegate affirmed the Arbitrator's decision, holding that the mandatory payment provision was not raised at arbitration and, in any event, assessments remain subject to a reasonableness and necessity test.

The defendant brought motions for security for costs in two related motor vehicle accident actions commenced by spouses.

Although the plaintiffs had moved to Ghana and were therefore ordinarily resident outside Ontario, they proposed transferring the actions to Small Claims Court.

The court held that if the actions were transferred, security for costs would not be available because the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to order it.

The decision on the motions was therefore reserved for 120 days to allow the plaintiffs to pursue transfer of the actions.