Sukhpreet Singh Jagpal

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages in lieu of specific performance for a failed residential real estate transaction.

The appellants (vendors) argued that the respondents (purchasers) were not entitled to specific performance or damages in lieu after accepting the return of their deposit, and that the motion judge used the wrong appraisal date for calculating damages.

The Court of Appeal declined to entertain the deposit argument as it was a new issue on appeal.

However, the Court found that the motion judge erred by not using the actual sale price of the replacement property as the best indication of its value for damages calculation, instead relying on an earlier appraisal.

The appeal was allowed, and the damages awarded to the respondents were reduced from $150,000 to $56,000.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim to half the proceeds from the sale of a property and granting the respondent's counterclaim based on a resulting trust.

The parties were unmarried, and the trial judge found the appellant had financially exploited the respondent and contributed nothing to the property's purchase or upkeep.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the presumption of resulting trust to the gratuitous transfer of the property interest, and affording deference to her credibility assessments and factual findings.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after the defendants repudiated the contract, alleging the vendor lacked mental capacity and that a Power of Attorney (POA) had been revoked.

The court found the APS to be a binding agreement, rejecting the defendants' claims of POA revocation and lack of capacity due to insufficient evidence.

The defence regarding spousal consent was also dismissed.

Partial judgment was granted to the plaintiffs for undisputed legal costs, with a reference ordered to determine additional damages.

This action concerned a dispute over the proceeds of sale of a residential property between former common-law partners.

The plaintiff, Errol Walters, claimed entitlement to half the proceeds based on registered joint title.

The defendant, Lubna Nusseiri, counter-claimed for a resulting trust, arguing the transfer of half-interest to Walters was gratuitous and that she was the sole beneficial owner.

The court found Walters made no contribution to the property's initial purchase and that the subsequent transfer to him was gratuitous, giving rise to a presumptive resulting trust in Nusseiri's favour.

Walters failed to rebut this presumption.

The court also rejected Walters' constructive trust claim for renovations, finding no unjust enrichment.

Following a successful motion by Maple Drywall Inc. for leave to intervene, the court determined the issues of costs and the scope of intervention.

The court awarded costs to the intervenor, rejecting the defendants' argument that the motion materials were misleading, but reduced the requested amount as excessive.

The court also set the scope of the intervenor's participation, limiting its examination of each defendant to three hours.