Sukanta Saha

Appeal from dismissal of breach of contract claim for attendant care services.

The appellant alleged an oral agreement modifying a fixed-rate compensation arrangement, claiming a balance owing of over $576,000.

The trial judge found no documentary evidence of the oral agreement, ruled certain evidence inadmissible, and found invoices and timesheets to be exaggerated or fabricated.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis or conclusions and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, requesting an extension on the closing date due to a mortgage appraisal requirement, despite having removed the financing condition from their initial offer.

The court found no obligation on the plaintiffs to grant the extension and dismissed the defendants' defence of failure to mitigate damages, as the defendants provided no evidence to support their claim that the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in re-listing and selling the property at a lower price.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for the difference in sale price and other consequential damages.

The plaintiff, Mira Kovacevic, sought payment of $576,133.77 for caregiver and attendant care services allegedly provided to the defendants, Slobodan Griva and Milena Griva, following a motor vehicle accident, plus $50,000 in punitive damages.

The defendants did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an uncontested basis with the plaintiff's affidavit evidence.

The court found the plaintiff's timesheets and invoices to be exaggerated or fabricated and not credible.

While acknowledging an agreement for $2,000 per month for services, the court determined the plaintiff had already been overcompensated.

The claim for general damages was dismissed.

The punitive damages claim was also dismissed, as no actionable wrong was proven, and allegations made in pleadings are subject to absolute privilege.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety, with no order as to costs.

The applicant mother sought an urgent order to enforce existing access arrangements and obtain make-up time, including a police enforcement clause, due to the respondent father's unilateral withholding of access.

The father brought a cross-motion to restrict the mother's access to video conferencing until counselling was completed, citing concerns about the mother's partner and the child's safety, despite a Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigation not verifying his allegations.

The court found the mother's motion urgent, criticized the father's unilateral actions and his undermining of the child's relationship with the mother, and dismissed the father's cross-motion.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to restore court-ordered access to the child, which the respondent father had unilaterally suspended.

The father alleged the mother violated a condition regarding her partner's presence, despite a Children's Aid Society investigation finding the allegations "not verified." The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter "potentially urgent" given the ongoing denial of access and scheduled it for a full hearing, setting timelines for responding materials.

The court also provided guidance on issues to be addressed at the hearing, including CAS recommendations, reconciliation counselling, and the impropriety of self-help remedies for non-compliance with orders.