S. McGrath

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for an equitable mortgage.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to determine the proper amount of the remaining proceeds from a power of sale.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the parties always intended the plaintiff to have a second-ranking charge behind construction financing.

On the cross-motion, the court disallowed the defendants' three-month interest charge under section 8 of the Interest Act, reduced the claimed legal fees, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the balance of the residual proceeds of $99,400.83.

The applicants entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy the respondents' home.

The agreement included an escape clause allowing the respondents to accept a better offer if the applicants did not waive their conditions within 24 hours of notice.

The respondents received a higher offer and notified the applicants, who promptly waived their financing and inspection conditions.

The respondents claimed the applicants also needed to explicitly waive the escape clause itself, and sold the property to the second buyer.

The court found the respondents breached the contract, as the escape clause was merely a mechanism that was fulfilled when the applicants waived their conditions.

The court directed a reference to determine the quantum of damages, noting the applicants' duty to mitigate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to show cause why their action should not be dismissed for delay.

The action arose from a construction mortgage dispute and was related to a separate Brampton action where the defendants had obtained summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Master found that the plaintiffs' involvement in the related action and the defendants' failure to serve a statement of defence provided an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Master also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants and ordered that the action proceed.

An application was brought to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award arising from a contractual dispute involving the supply of agricultural seeds.

The respondent argued the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by ordering repayment of a partial payment after finding both parties had breached the contract and by applying equitable principles outside the contractual terms.

The court held the arbitration clause contemplated disputes relating to breaches of the contract and permitted equitable solutions under the governing arbitration rules.

The arbitrator acted within jurisdiction, and none of the refusal grounds under Article 36 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act were established.

The arbitral award was therefore recognized and enforced.

The former estate trustee of an estate brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement relating to the passing of accounts and compensation for her administration of the estate.

The respondents argued that no binding settlement existed because essential terms—specifically the scope and form of mutual releases—had not been agreed upon.

The court reviewed the correspondence between counsel following the purported acceptance of an offer and concluded that negotiations continued and that a serious disagreement persisted regarding the releases.

The court held that the releases constituted an essential term of the proposed settlement.

Because there was no agreement on that essential term, no enforceable settlement contract existed.