Shaneka Shaw Taylor

The applicant sought an accounting and distribution of proceeds following a consent order for partition and sale of a jointly owned duplex.

The court determined the distribution of the net sale proceeds, allowing certain maintenance and carrying costs claimed by the respondent while denying others.

The applicant also sought an order removing him from an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction condominium based on a mutual release.

Due to conflicting affidavit evidence regarding duress and conflict of interest, the court directed a trial of an issue regarding the enforceability of the mutual release.

The plaintiff loaned $400,000 to the defendant corporation for a real estate project.

When the defendant defaulted, the plaintiff sought an equitable mortgage on the property and posted about the default on a private Facebook group for real estate investors.

The defendant counterclaimed for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the plaintiff's claim, finding the loan was in default and an equitable mortgage arose, taking priority over a subsequent legal mortgage.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, holding the Facebook post was substantially true, protected by qualified privilege, and did not constitute unlawful interference.

The defendants brought motions to set aside a Mareva injunction obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs in the context of a dispute over loans allegedly obtained through a Ponzi scheme.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion.

Although the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of civil fraud against the primary defendant based on false representations regarding a guarantee, they failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets for either defendant.

The Mareva injunction was set aside.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 37.14(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a summary judgment order granted by Justice Stevenson on January 8, 2025.

The defendants' counsel served a last-minute motion to remove himself as counsel and adjourn the hearing at 7:48 pm the night before the hearing.

Counsel did not attend the hearing, claiming an unexpected medical matter.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding that: (1) the medical evidence did not support an urgent medical condition preventing counsel's attendance; (2) counsel made an informed decision not to attend without proper reason; and (3) the defendant's email at 10:22 am did not establish insufficient notice.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,000 to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' property for $1.65M but failed to close, despite two extensions.

The defendants later offered to purchase the property for $1.485M with conditions, which the plaintiffs rejected.

The plaintiffs ultimately sold the property to a third party for $1.2M.

The court found that the defendants breached the agreement and that the plaintiffs had no duty to mitigate by accepting the defendants' lower offer.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, awarding $458,070.13 in damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The plaintiffs (vendors) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a $50,000 deposit from the defendants (purchasers) after a residential real estate deal failed.

The vendors argued a binding agreement was formed, while the purchasers contended that the vendors' addition of "Schedule B" and requirement for its acknowledgment constituted a counteroffer that was never accepted.

The court applied the test for summary judgment and found that the vendors' actions, including the MLS listing stipulation and the demand for Schedule B to be initialled and signed, indicated they considered Schedule B an essential part of the agreement.

Therefore, the return of the agreement with Schedule B was a counteroffer, which the purchasers did not accept.

The court concluded that no binding contract existed and dismissed the vendors' claim for the deposit.

This motion concerned the enforcement of a prior court order for the sale of jointly owned real property.

The respondent, Jason Andrew Whiting, failed to cooperate with the sale process, including accepting a written offer and vacating the premises, despite previous warnings and opportunities to provide evidence of alternative buyers.

The court found no justification for further delay, declared the existing agreement of purchase and sale binding, and ordered the respondent to vacate the property by a specified date.

Costs were fixed against the respondent.

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment for specific performance in relation to the purchase of a residential co-operative unit, where the appellant anticipatorily breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's arguments that the motion judge erred in finding the property unique, justifying specific performance, and in finding the respondent ready, willing, and able to close the transaction.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found no reprehensible or outrageous conduct by the defendant to justify elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $18,416.24.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order for specific performance arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and increased mortgage rates incurred due to the breach.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the plaintiff legal fees, moving costs, ongoing storage costs, and the difference in mortgage rates, to be deducted from the purchase price on closing.

The claim for rent was denied as it was offset by the savings from not paying a mortgage.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment and specific performance for an aborted real estate transaction.

The Defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by refusing to close, initially citing spousal objection, which was later resolved by a court order.

The court found the Defendant in anticipatory breach and the Plaintiff to be the innocent party.

The central issue was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or damages.

Applying the "uniqueness" test from Semelhago, the court found the property unique, considering market conditions and the unavailability of comparable properties within the Plaintiff's price range.

The Plaintiff was deemed justified in not mitigating damages, especially given the Defendant's retention of the deposit.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff, ordering specific performance of the agreement.

This endorsement concerns a request to reconsider a costs disposition made on July 27, 2021.

The moving party for the reconsideration (respondents in the underlying appeal) had their costs submissions filed late and not forwarded to the panel.

The court reviewed the submissions but found no reason to vary the original costs order, confirming the previous disposition.

The self-represented plaintiff in a solicitor's negligence action requested a case conference after failing to comply with a court-ordered timetable.

The plaintiff had not provided an Affidavit of Documents by the deadline, arguing he was waiting for additional documents from the defendant.

The plaintiff also failed to attend his scheduled examination for discovery.

The court found the plaintiff in breach of the timetable, directed the parties to bring their respective motions regarding document production and discovery attendance in Masters' Court, and awarded costs of the case conference to the defendant.

AIG Insurance Company of Canada sought substantial indemnity costs against The Corporation of the City of Markham and Lloyd’s Underwriters following a motion for reconsideration of an appeal decision.

The court found the reconsideration motion to be entirely without merit, having put AIG to needless expense.

Consequently, the court awarded AIG $13,000 in substantial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

The respondents (moving parties on the motion) sought reconsideration of a Court of Appeal decision rendered 15 months prior.

The motion was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court emphasizing the principle of finality.

Reconsideration is rarely granted, especially when the moving party has already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the same arguments, which was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from the Toronto Region to the Southwest Region (Windsor).

The action arose from a failed real estate transaction for a property located in Windsor.

The plaintiff, who resides in Toronto, commenced the action in Toronto seeking specific performance or damages.

Applying the holistic approach under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the plaintiff's choice of venue was reasonable and the defendant failed to establish that Windsor would be a significantly better venue.

The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The City of Oshawa sought a declaration that MEARIE had a duty to defend it in a slip-and-fall action arising from an uneven sidewalk where Oshawa PUC had previously performed work.

The City was an additional insured on Oshawa PUC's policy.

The court found that MEARIE had a duty to defend because there was a mere possibility that the claim fell within coverage, as the liability could arise from Oshawa PUC's operations.

However, the court held that the City must bear its share of defence costs for uncovered claims and denied the City's request to appoint its own counsel, finding that MEARIE's proposed safeguards adequately addressed any conflict of interest.

At a case conference in a solicitor's negligence action, the court established a timetable for the conduct of the action, including dates for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, mandatory mediation, and expert reports.

The parties also agreed to stay a related application to enforce a fee arrangement pending an assessment of the defendant's fees.

The infant plaintiff suffered significant injuries after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs moved to extend the time to set the action down for trial, and the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The Master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, which was upheld by the Superior Court and Divisional Court on the basis that the court retained inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials without consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly requires the consent of the parties to bifurcate any proceeding, whether jury or non-jury, thereby ousting the court's inherent jurisdiction to do so without consent.

This appeal concerns a dispute between two insurers, AIG Insurance Company of Canada and Lloyd's Underwriters, regarding their respective duties to defend the City of Markham in a personal injury action.

The application judge had found AIG solely responsible for the defence and denied AIG the right to participate in the defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that both AIG and Lloyd's had a concurrent duty to defend the City, and must share defence costs equally, subject to reallocation at the conclusion of the action.

Furthermore, the Court found that AIG has a right to participate in the defence, including retaining and instructing counsel, provided a "split file" protocol with additional safeguards is implemented to manage potential conflicts of interest.