Sim Chahal

The owners of a residential property sought to discharge a construction lien registered by Serena Homes Construction Limited in the amount of $1,612,303.43.

The owners alleged that Serena Homes fraudulently altered invoices from subcontractors to inflate costs.

Serena Homes acknowledged exaggeration in the lien amount and proposed a reduction to $1,352,092.55, later adjusted to $1,043,282.55 after further review.

The court found that while the lien contained exaggerated amounts, the claim was not frivolous or vexatious, and a substantial debt remained owing for services provided.

The court reduced the lien to $1,043,282.55 rather than discharging it entirely, finding that the exact amount owing and whether mark-ups were contemplated by the agreement were issues for trial.

The appellant vendor appealed a summary judgment that granted specific performance to purchasers of three townhomes and dismissed the vendor's motion for forfeiture of deposits.

The transactions failed to close on the scheduled date due to delayed mortgage funds.

The motion judge found the vendor in anticipatory breach for prematurely terminating the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), ruling that the "time is of the essence" clause did not impose a specific closing time and that the vendor acted unreasonably.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the interpretation of the "time is of the essence" clause or the finding of anticipatory breach and bad faith.

The Court also denied leave to appeal the costs award, finding no error in principle or irrationality in the quantum.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained by the plaintiff without notice against a commercial property.

The plaintiff, a shareholder in the company that originally purchased the property, alleged the property was fraudulently conveyed to another company.

The court found that while the plaintiff met the threshold test for claiming an interest in land, he failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, specifically regarding prior litigation and settlement involving the property.

Balancing the equities, including the non-disclosure, the fact that the property was not unique, and that damages would be an adequate remedy, the court ordered the CPL discharged without security.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had accumulated over $16,000 in rent arrears and admitted she could not afford the rent.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's appeal grounds did not raise any questions of law and that the appeal was launched solely to delay eviction, constituting an abuse of process.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The landlord successfully moved to quash the tenants' appeal of a Residential Tenancies Act eviction order.

The landlord sought costs of $8,065.47 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the appeal was meritless and a delaying tactic.

The self-represented tenants, whose only income was from the Ontario Disability Support Program, argued for a costs award of $500.

The court declined to award punitive substantial indemnity costs, finding the tenants were entitled to their day in court, and fixed costs at $1,250 all-inclusive.

The Landlord brought a motion to quash the Tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board termination order.

The Board had previously found the agreed-upon rent of $1,750, which included utilities, was lawful under s. 123(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and subsequently issued a termination order for non-payment of the $300 portion of rent.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law as required by s. 210 of the Act.

Alternatively, even if a question of law was extractable, it was manifestly devoid of merit, consistent with prior Divisional Court decisions affirming that utilities can be included in rent under s. 123.

The tenant appealed a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant failed to appear at the hearing and did not comply with the terms of a previous adjournment.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal because the tenant failed to obtain leave to appeal a consent order under s. 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act and the notice of appeal did not raise an error of law under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.

The respondent had lent $6,000,000 to the appellant via a vendor take-back mortgage that matured on May 7, 2016.

Upon default, the respondent offered a settlement for $6,162,950.45, which included principal, interest, three months' interest compensation, receivership costs, and legal fees.

The appellant paid the full amount and received a discharge of the mortgage.

Three days later, the appellant disputed the amount charged and sought relief from certain costs.

The motion judge enforced the settlement, finding the terms were clear and the appellant had accepted them without condition or protest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the enforceability of the settlement agreement and rejecting arguments regarding unconscionability and violations of the Interest Act.