S. Lang

The appellants purchased a house from the respondents and subsequently discovered electrical, plumbing, and structural defects resulting from the respondents' DIY renovations and previous substandard work.

The appellants, who declined a pre-purchase inspection, sued for the cost of repairs, alleging the respondents concealed latent defects.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondents were unaware of the defects and did not actively conceal them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that 'active concealment' requires an intention to hide a known defect, and the principle of caveat emptor applied.

The appellant appealed a decision, arguing a trial was required for its claim that the respondent intentionally interfered with its economic relations with a tenant through the tort of nuisance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the appellant suffered damages as a result of the respondent's conduct, particularly regarding lease renewals.

The self-represented appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay a mortgage debt and give up possession of his property.

He argued that he had paid condominium fees, that the respondents wrongly discharged a lien against the property, and that he received no notice of non-renewal of the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge, noting the mortgage had matured and the respondents properly paid the condominium corporation to satisfy the lien.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant, the respondent brought a motion to re-open the appeal based on fresh evidence.

The court declined to re-open the appeal.

The appellant sought costs of $7,500 for preparing responding materials and costs submissions.

The court awarded the appellant costs fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that he had repudiated an accepted offer to settle a family law dispute.

The appellant argued that his proposed separation agreement did not contain important changes or additions to the accepted offer.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the appellant's proposal to transfer control of the matrimonial home and another property to himself without specifying trust terms or time limitations was a fundamental alteration.

The court upheld the motion judge's application of the doctrine of repudiation and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sued a national credit agency, alleging it published inaccurate credit information regarding her default on a debt owed to a bank.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding the report of default was correct as the debt arose under a personal guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.