Shaun O'Brien

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property, claiming breach and seeking specific performance.

The Defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no agreement was reached.

The court found that the parties never had a meeting of the minds (consensus ad idem) regarding an essential term, the "renovation clause" which was ambiguous and had different interpretations by each party.

Consequently, no valid contract was formed.

The Plaintiff's motion was dismissed, the action was dismissed, and the deposit was ordered to be returned to the Plaintiff.

The court also hypothetically addressed specific performance, finding the property unique.

The applicant, a unit owner, brought an application under the oppression remedy of the Condominium Act, 1998, alleging the condominium corporation acted oppressively, unfairly prejudicially, and unfairly disregarding her interests regarding a building-wide Kitec plumbing replacement project.

The applicant refused to participate in the project or allow inspection, claiming her unit had copper piping, which contradicted prior information.

The condominium corporation insisted on verifying the safety of the plumbing, eventually conducting pressure testing through its own contractors after the applicant failed to provide satisfactory documentation or access.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation acted reasonably to ensure property safety and did not breach the applicant's reasonable expectations.

The defendant, Corus Entertainment Inc., brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, a former employee, claimed Corus breached a retirement agreement by reducing monthly Supplementary Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) payments.

The court found that the jurisprudence regarding limitation periods for periodic payments was unsettled and fact-dependent, making it not "plain and obvious" that the plaintiff's claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Law Society of Ontario applied under s. 49.13 of the Law Society Act for an order to disclose confidential financial records of Rasik Behari Mehta to the Ontario Securities Commission's Joint Serious Offences Team (JSOT) for an investigation into alleged frauds by David Singh.

The court considered whether the s. 49.13(2) restrictions on disclosure applied, finding that the financial records were not "oral or written statements" and were not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Applying a three-part test from Deloitte & Touche LLP, the court balanced the public interest in disclosure against confidentiality concerns, concluding that the public interest in investigating and prosecuting serious fraud outweighed any remaining confidentiality issues.

The application was granted.

The defendants appealed a Master's order that granted the plaintiff leave to file additional evidence and conduct further examinations under Rule 39.02(2) and 39.03, pending the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved claims against a deceased's estate, requiring corroborating evidence under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

The Master found that the need for corroboration became apparent after cross-examinations and applied a contextual approach, limiting the additional evidence and allowing the defendants to respond.

The Superior Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of the test under *First Capital Realty Inc. v. Centrecorp Management Services Ltd*.

The court emphasized deference to the Master's expertise in discovery matters and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The applicant, Brenda King, brought a motion for relief from forfeiture concerning a property from which she had been evicted.

She sought the opportunity to purchase the property pursuant to an earlier agreement.

The court reviewed the history, including an initial option to purchase, an amending agreement, and a subsequent court order that set a new purchase date.

The applicant failed to provide funds or secure a real estate lawyer by the closing date stipulated in the court order, thereby breaching her obligations.

Applying the three-factor test for relief from forfeiture, the court found that the applicant's conduct constituted a significant breach and, crucially, that she lacked the current financial ability to complete the purchase even if relief were granted.

Consequently, the motion for relief from forfeiture was denied.

The plaintiff, an 83-year-old woman, brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze the contents of a safe deposit box held by her daughter-in-law.

The plaintiff had loaned her son and daughter-in-law over $300,000, of which approximately $205,000 remained unpaid.

The plaintiff sought to prevent the daughter-in-law from selling a valuable diamond ring located in the safe deposit box before returning to California.

The court found a strong prima facie case and satisfied the five-part test for a Mareva injunction, granting the order on an interim basis.