S. Jagpal

The plaintiffs brought a reference to determine damages after the defendants breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The court found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given their specific criteria and the rising real estate market.

Applying the principles from Semelhago, the court assessed damages based on the difference in appreciation between the breached property and a substitute property the plaintiffs subsequently purchased.

The plaintiffs were awarded $150,000 in additional damages, plus thrown-away expenses and substantial indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious conduct.

A non-party purchaser of a matrimonial home brought a motion to set aside a previous order and sought costs against the husband and his former counsel, alleging sharp practice for proceeding with a motion while the purchaser was out of the country.

The former counsel brought a cross-motion to dismiss the costs claim.

The court dismissed the non-party's motion to set aside the order due to his failure to file a factum and answer key questions.

The court also dismissed the costs claim against the former counsel, finding no improper conduct.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the former counsel against the non-party, but the court declined to order costs against the non-party's counsel personally under Rule 57.07.