Shahzad Siddiqui

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from an aborted residential real estate transaction.

The defendant purchaser argued she was entitled to revoke her offer before it was accepted and that the irrevocability clause in the standard form agreement was unconscionable.

The court held that the irrevocability clause was binding as it was supported by distinct consideration (the developer taking the property off the market).

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Uber v. Heller, the court found that while there was unequal bargaining power, the irrevocability clause was not an improvident bargain.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $179,599.94.

The applicants and respondents were the four directors of a non-share corporation operating a religious seminary.

The corporation faced severe financial difficulties, and the applicants sought to sell its main property to pay off debts.

The respondents refused to consent, resulting in a board deadlock.

The applicants applied for a court order compelling the sale under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Highwood that courts should generally avoid interfering in the internal decision-making of religious organizations, especially where no procedural unfairness is shown and alternative remedies exist.

The appellant purchaser failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property in Mississauga.

After receiving multiple extensions, the appellant ultimately did not close due to inability to obtain mortgage financing.

The respondent vendors resold the property for a lower price and sued for damages.

The motion judge awarded damages for the difference in price plus consequential losses, and ordered forfeiture of the $75,000 deposit without crediting it toward the damages.

On appeal, the court upheld the damages award but reversed the deposit forfeiture issue, holding that the deposit must be credited toward the damages when the vendor suffers a loss from the purchaser's breach.

The plaintiff buyer failed to close a real estate transaction due to an inability to secure financing.

The plaintiff attempted to renegotiate the purchase price and deposit, which the defendant sellers rejected.

The defendants subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $5,000 less and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action and release the $65,000 deposit to them.

The court granted the motion, finding no bad faith, no failure to mitigate, and no grounds for relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was reasonable and there was no unconscionability.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment to enforce a 2010 summary judgment against the defendant for a mortgage shortfall.

The original writ had expired in 2016.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the plaintiff's nine-year delay in enforcement.

The court granted leave to issue the writ but, exercising its discretion to prevent injustice from the plaintiff's inaction, capped the accrual of interest to three years post-judgment.

A tenant operating a bakery and café sought to terminate its commercial lease and obtain damages following the landlord's failure to repair the HVAC system.

The application judge found the landlord had breached its lease obligations and ordered termination with a trial on damages.

The landlord appealed, arguing procedural unfairness and misinterpretation of the lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the substantive findings but set aside the award of substantial indemnity costs, finding the application judge erred in excluding the landlord's supplementary affidavit while admitting the tenant's supplementary affidavit without proper consideration of the applicable rules.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendants raised defenses of frustration due to a market drop, delay, misrepresentation, and bribery, all of which were rejected by the court.

The court awarded damages for loss of bargain based on the difference between the contract price and the appraised value.

However, the court refused to enforce a 20% interest rate clause in the standard form agreement, finding it to be a surprisingly onerous term that was not drawn to the defendants' attention.

The appellant sought a motion to review a decision of the motion judge.

The motion judge had heard both the respondent's motion to stay proceedings and the appellant's motion for an extension of time simultaneously.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's discretionary order, as the motion judge had reasonably connected his decision on the respondent's motion to his disposition of the appellant's motion.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.00 all-inclusive.

The respondent brought a motion for recusal against the case management judge, alleging bias and lack of impartiality.

The judge had appointed herself as case management judge for complex, protracted proceedings involving the parties.

The respondent maintained the allegations despite being offered an opportunity to withdraw them, and was directed to bring a formal recusal motion.

The respondent failed to provide cogent evidence of bias.

Applying the high threshold for recusal motions, particularly within the case management context, the court found no actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The recusal motion was dismissed.

Mohammad Akram, an incapable person with substantial property, had The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company appointed as interim guardian.

Due to persistent family disputes and non-cooperation, the interim guardian moved for its removal, the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), and approval of its compensation and indemnification for legal fees.

The court determined it lacked authority to appoint the PGT as guardian without the PGT's consent and a formal application, especially since other family members expressed willingness to act.

The court denied the immediate removal of the interim guardian but varied the existing Order Giving Directions to establish a structured timetable for the appointment of a permanent guardian and mandatory mediation.

The court granted the interim guardian permission to pre-take compensation and indemnify itself for legal fees, and appointed the PGT as litigation guardian for the purpose of passing accounts.

The plaintiff and defendant, former business partners, each brought motions for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction for a property on Lushes Avenue.

The plaintiff sought specific performance and damages, alleging the defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and acted in bad faith.

The defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action, damages for unjust enrichment, vacant possession, and an order for sale, alleging the plaintiff anticipatorily repudiated the contract by lacking funds to close.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding numerous factual and legal issues in dispute, including which party was responsible for the failed transaction, the plaintiff's ability to close, anticipatory breach, and the property's uniqueness.

The court determined that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, citing deficiencies in the motion record and serious credibility issues requiring viva voce evidence.

The moving party sought extensions of time to appeal three orders from the Superior Court: a contempt order dated October 10, 2017, a costs order dated January 26, 2018, and a sentencing order dated September 21, 2018, which struck the moving party's pleadings and allowed the respondent to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The motion judge dismissed the extensions for the first two orders on the basis of abuse of process, given the substantial delays, lack of satisfactory explanation, and the moving party's pattern of non-compliance with court orders and procedural rules.

However, the motion judge granted an extension for the sentencing order due to its severe procedural consequences, and stayed that order pending appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction, alleging he was the victim of mortgage fraud by his agent and could not obtain financing.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement and that the alleged fraud did not excuse his failure to close.

The plaintiffs were awarded the $75,000 deposit and $308,688.31 in damages for the difference in the resale price and carrying costs.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for relief from forfeiture.

The Applicant sought costs following a motion for contempt, which was dismissed because the Respondent's non-compliance with a prior order was partly due to the Applicant's inaccurate documentation.

The Applicant requested costs on a substantial or partial indemnity scale, while the Respondent sought costs against the Applicant for alleged misconduct.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found no conduct by the Applicant warranting costs against it, but also determined that the Applicant was not entitled to costs due to its own contribution to the dispute.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to make no costs award on the application.

The purchaser, Salvatore Benedetto, failed to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for three properties, having paid a $100,000 deposit held by Re/Max.

Benedetto had signed the APS "In Trust For A Company to be Incorporated without any Personal liabilities" relying on s. 21(4) of the Business Corporations Act to argue the deposit should be returned.

The vendor, 2453912 Ontario Inc., moved for summary judgment, seeking forfeiture of the deposit.

The court ruled that s. 21(4) prevents personal liability for contractual obligations but does not prevent the forfeiture of a deposit, which serves as an earnest to secure performance.

The court granted the vendor's motion, ordering the deposit released to the vendor, and dismissed Benedetto's claim for its return.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by the bankrupt's former spouse.

The former spouse had appealed an order made by a Master, arguing the Master acted in her capacity as a Superior Court Master rather than a Registrar in Bankruptcy, which would give the Divisional Court jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found that the Master was acting in her capacity as a Registrar in Bankruptcy when she dismissed the motion to vary.

Consequently, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals from a Registrar in Bankruptcy must be brought before a single judge on the Commercial List.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice refusing to adjourn an application.

The appellant argued it was denied procedural fairness as it was unrepresented, had taken steps to prepare a response, and there had been no prior adjournments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's discretionary decision to refuse the adjournment, finding that the request appeared to be an attempt to delay proceedings.

The court noted the appellant's pattern of resisting performance of contractual obligations through litigation and its relative inaction in the seven weeks between service and the return date.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice and moved to admit fresh evidence demonstrating that the respondent was under administration in the UK after the statement of claim and in liquidation after judgment.

The appellant argued this fresh evidence showed the respondent was not entitled to pursue the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it sufficiently clear from existing exhibits that the claim was a subrogated claim brought by the respondent's credit insurer and therefore not caught by bankruptcy proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $11,300 for unpaid cabinet work.

The appellants alleged they had paid in cash.

During the respondent's cross-examination, the trial judge made several interventions expressing disbelief in the cash payment defence and stating he was insulted that the respondent had not been paid.

The Divisional Court found these interventions created a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the trial judge had effectively decided the case before hearing the defence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, an auditing firm, sought judgment against the respondents for unpaid invoices via an application.

The respondents disputed the fees, alleging a promised discount and challenging the contractual interest rate.

The court considered whether the matter could be resolved by application or required conversion to an action.

Finding material facts in dispute regarding the alleged discount and the need for pleadings to clarify legal positions, the court concluded that the application was not a "clearest of cases" suitable for resolution on a paper record.

The application was therefore converted into an action, and a trial was directed, with a timetable for the exchange of pleadings.