3 total
Damages for a failed real estate transaction were assessed, excluding unsupported additional charges.
This decision concerns a reference for the calculation of damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.
The vendor, 400 East Mall GP Inc., sought damages from the purchaser, Olanrewaju Omololu, after the purchaser breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
The court assessed damages for loss of bargain and consequential damages.
It determined that various 'Additional Charges' claimed by the vendor were not recoverable due to insufficient evidence and failure to mitigate.
The court awarded the vendor $97,835.92 in total damages, after crediting the purchaser's deposit and offsetting occupancy fees against carrying costs.
No costs were awarded due to the mixed result.
Costs of $11,563.29 awarded to successful defendants following dismissal of motion for certificate of pending litigation.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation, the successful defendants sought full indemnity costs of $17,800.89.
The court considered the defendants' offer to settle and the principles under Rule 49.10(2), noting that the presumptive rule for elevated costs does not strictly apply when a plaintiff's claim is entirely dismissed.
Balancing the complexity of the motion, the amount at stake, and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs at $11,563.29 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Motion for certificate of pending litigation dismissed as damages were an adequate remedy for the investment dispute.
The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a Toronto condominium legally owned by his ex-fiancée, the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership based on an oral agreement and wire transfers he alleged were for the property's purchase.
The court found the plaintiff established a triable issue for a constructive trust.
However, the court dismissed the motion, concluding that the equities favoured the defendant because the property was an investment, not unique to the plaintiff, and damages would be an adequate remedy.
Costs were awarded to the defendant.
