Sumeet (Sonu) Dhanju-Dhillon

This endorsement addresses the settlement of an order following a summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The parties disagreed on the form of the order.

The court clarified that an order must strictly reflect the operative language and relief granted in the prior reasons for decision, and cannot be used to introduce new or additional relief, re-argue points, or vary previously granted relief.

Consequently, several paragraphs from the plaintiff's proposed draft order, which sought new relief or procedural directions not granted in the original reasons, were excluded from the final order.

The plaintiff, a holding company for a professional athlete, purchased a luxury home from the defendant corporation.

Shortly after moving in, the occupants were confronted by a stranger looking for the previous tenant, a known crypto fraudster who had been kidnapped and whose angry investors frequently visited the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking rescission of the agreement of purchase and sale.

The court granted the motion, finding that the vendor made a fraudulent misrepresentation by marketing the property as private and secure while knowing of the ongoing safety risks.

The court also found that the safety risk constituted an undisclosed latent defect that rendered the property unfit for habitation.

The court ordered rescission of the contract and, in the alternative, equitable damages.