Spencer Ball

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation concerning latent defects (water infiltration and foundation issues) in a property they purchased.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendant's knowledge of the latent defects, which is a prerequisite for vendor liability.

The negligent misrepresentation claim was dismissed due to an "entire agreement" clause in the agreement of purchase and sale, which precluded reliance on pre-contractual representations.

Although finding no liability, the court assessed damages, noting the plaintiffs' failure to mitigate significantly increased the remediation costs.

The plaintiff commercial tenant sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant landlord from terminating its lease.

The plaintiff had failed to provide written notice of renewal on time and had sublet the premises without consent.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried, as the plaintiff had not made diligent efforts to comply with the lease terms, precluding relief from forfeiture.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged losses would be suffered by the subtenant, not the plaintiff.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The applicant, the surviving spouse and residuary beneficiary of the deceased's estate, applied for the return of $125,000 transferred by the deceased to her son and daughter-in-law shortly before her death.

The court found that the $35,000 cheque to the daughter-in-law was a valid gift, as hearsay evidence of the deceased's intention was admissible and corroborated, rebutting the presumptions of resulting trust and undue influence.

However, the $90,000 cheque to the son was not proven to be a gift, as the son's evidence lacked corroboration and contained inconsistencies.

The son was ordered to return the $90,000 to the estate.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action regarding the ownership of a rural property, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the trial outcome, entitling them to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $35,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim, which contained allegations of deceit, intimidation, and bad faith bargaining.

The defendant subsequently brought a motion to amend the pleadings.

The substantive issues were resolved on consent, leaving only the issue of costs.

The court found that the defendant's original pleading was flawed and that the plaintiff was justified in challenging it, but criticized both counsel for failing to resolve the matter without court intervention.

Applying principles of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff fixed costs of $6,000, significantly reducing the amount claimed.

The appellants, authorized medical marijuana users, sued the respondents after being ejected from a bar because they smelled of marijuana.

The motion judge struck their claim under Rule 21 for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in striking the claim for the tort of intimidation, as all elements were pleaded.

The Court also found the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding the action was an abuse of process based on a misunderstanding of a previous action.

The appeal was allowed in part, reinstating the intimidation claim.

Following a successful motion to strike an amended statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, the defendants sought costs of the motion.

The court considered the discretionary framework under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the plaintiff had been given an opportunity to further amend the pleading, the defendants were nonetheless the successful parties on the motion.

Finding the defendants’ costs outline reasonable and identifying no basis to deny costs, the court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, who uses medical marijuana, was threatened with arrest for trespass by police officers while smoking marijuana outside a courthouse.

He brought an action against the city, police board, and individual officers for intimidation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for any of the claims.

The Charter claims against the individual defendants were dismissed on the merits, while the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the remaining claims.