Sherif Magdy Girgis Azmy Rizk

This is a costs decision following a summary judgment award to the plaintiff for $106,012.93 against the defendants for failure to complete the purchase of a property pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale dated August 16, 2023.

The defendants' counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and loss of opportunity were dismissed.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 to the plaintiff, reducing the requested amount of $29,777.87 due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in misinterpreting a final amendment to the agreement and demanding removal of the property listing from MLS for approximately two months, which was central to the litigation.

A developer sought summary judgment for damages of $106,012.93 against purchasers who failed to complete the purchase of a property in a new development.

The purchasers had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a closing date of August 16, 2023.

Amendments to the agreement permitted the purchasers to assign the agreement and to list the property for sale on MLS and other platforms.

The developer demanded removal of the MLS listing in January 2023, claiming the amendment permitting such listing was signed in error.

The purchasers removed the listing under protest and later claimed the developer's conduct constituted a repudiatory breach entitling them to rescind the contract.

The court found no repudiation or misrepresentation, determined the final amendment was valid and enforceable, and awarded judgment to the developer for the loss on resale plus incidental costs.

This decision concerns a dispute within the Kidus Gabriel Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church in Ottawa regarding the legitimacy of the board of directors and control over church property.

The Applicants challenged the 2023 board election, alleging irregularities and interference by non-members aligned with a rival synod.

The court ordered a supervised special meeting to elect a new board, established a process for determining eligible voters, and mandated the reopening of the church for worship, with access for both parties pending the election.

The Father brought a motion seeking the return of one child (R.M.) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that it had jurisdiction under both s. 22(1)(b) and s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 22(1)(b) were met, including that there were no pending extra-provincial proceedings due to the Father's bad faith in concealing UAE custody proceedings from the Mother.

Furthermore, the court found that R.M. would suffer serious physical and psychological harm if returned to the UAE, given the Mother and children's Convention refugee status, the Father's history of abuse and lack of credibility, and R.M.'s strong, consistent views against returning.