Sukhdeep S. Gill

The applicant sought an order for partition and sale of a residential property of which he was a registered co-owner as tenant in common, and distribution of proceeds.

The respondents, his siblings, brought a counter application asserting resulting trust, constructive trust, and an unwritten collective ownership agreement based on familial and cultural norms.

The court found the siblings' counterclaim statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as they knew of the dispute more than ten years before commencing their application.

On the merits, the court held that the siblings failed to establish a purchase money resulting trust, constructive trust based on unjust enrichment, or an enforceable unwritten agreement barred by the Statute of Frauds.

The applicant's partition and sale application was granted; he was awarded 50% of the net proceeds and costs of $35,000, with a 75-day delay before listing to allow the occupying siblings time to vacate.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by Arista Homes (Boxgrove Village) Inc. for forfeiture of a deposit after a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant, Ding Ding, sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the test for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit proportionate and no unconscionability.

The motion was granted and the deposit forfeited to Arista.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment requiring them to pay damages to the respondent, Rosehaven Homes Limited, for failing to complete an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The appeal focused on the motion judge's admission and reliance on Rosehaven's expert report concerning property valuation and Rosehaven's mitigation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to admit and rely on the expert report, noting it was verified by affidavit and the appellants did not object or provide competing admissible evidence.

The court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the assessment of Rosehaven's mitigation efforts or the quantification of damages.

The defendant, Nelli Griu, brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff, Arista Homes (Kleinburg) Inc., for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant argued that she could not afford legal assistance and had a credible defence based on frustration of contract due to a market value decrease, the plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages by refusing to renegotiate the price, and a claim for relief from forfeiture.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's proposed defences were legally untenable, as market fluctuations do not constitute frustration, a vendor is not obliged to renegotiate with a defaulting purchaser to mitigate damages, and relief from forfeiture was inapplicable given the deposit was deducted from damages.

The plaintiffs, Rosehaven Homes Limited and Bram-Rose Homes Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after the defendants failed to close a real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the APS was invalid due to issues like lack of ID verification, unconscionability, wilful blindness, and that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages by refusing a vendor take-back mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Rosehaven Homes Limited, finding no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the APS's validity and mitigation, awarding damages and prejudgment interest to Rosehaven Homes Limited.