S. MacKay

The court considered whether to depart from the statutory prejudgment interest (PJI) rate under the Courts of Justice Act in favour of a higher rate, following a breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiff sought a higher PJI rate based on market returns and the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the statutory rate undercompensated the plaintiff and, after reviewing the relevant statutory factors and case law, exercised its discretion to award a higher average rate of 3.17%.

The court considered whether an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a residential property between Kevin Curridor and Millstone Homes Inc. was valid and enforceable, and determined the appropriate quantum of damages.

The APS was found to be valid and enforceable under the "indoor management rule" of the Business Corporations Act, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of any internal irregularities or fraud.

The court awarded damages based on the difference between the agreed purchase price and the market value, with certain deductions.

This decision addresses a cost endorsement following an 11-day jury trial where the plaintiff's negligence claim against the defendant, Sears Canada Inc., was largely unsuccessful.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff and a portion of costs against OHIP.

The court dismissed the claim for costs against OHIP, finding that its statutory subrogation claim was not assessed and had no significant impact on the trial.

For the plaintiff, the court considered the defendant's Rule 49 offer to settle, the overriding principle of reasonableness, and various factors under Rule 57.01(1), including the complexity of the case, the amount claimed and recovered, and counsel rates.

The court fixed a reasonable cost award against the plaintiff at $200,000, inclusive of HST, to be paid within 30 days.

This costs endorsement addresses two motions brought by the applicant: one to compel answers to undertakings and refusals, and another to remove a solicitor due to conflict of interest.

The court partially granted the motion to compel answers and ordered the solicitor's removal.

The applicant sought $7,500 in costs, while respondents argued for no costs or a significant reduction due to divided success.

The court, applying the principles of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, awarded the applicant $5,500 in all-inclusive costs, allocating liability between specific respondents for each motion.