Taheratul Haque

This appeal concerned a failed condominium purchase where the central issue was the vendor's compliance with the Tarion Warranty Corporation Addendum, specifically regarding the delivery of an occupancy permit or confirmation of occupancy conditions.

The application judge found that no occupancy permit was required and that a letter from the builder was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal found a palpable and overriding error in the application judge's finding that the letter was *delivered* as required by the Addendum.

The evidence showed the letter was merely available for pick-up, not delivered.

The Court allowed the appeal, declared the vendor in breach of the agreement of purchase and sale, and ordered a reference to determine damages, along with costs to the appellants.

The added defendants (purchasers) moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff, to lift a stay on a writ of possession, and for the return of their purchase funds after a failed real estate closing.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPL and that the equities favoured the purchasers.

The court discharged the CPL, lifted the stay on the writ of possession, and ordered the vendors' solicitor to immediately return the purchase funds to the purchasers, as the vendors failed to provide vacant possession and clear title on closing.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for continuously breaching court orders regarding his access to their child.

The court found the mother's evidence evasive and contradictory, particularly regarding the child's health and her manipulation of a doctor's note.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother willfully and intentionally disobeyed the parenting arrangements in the November 9, 2020, and March 29, 2021 orders, including virtual and in-person access.

The court deferred the penalty phase of the contempt motion until after the upcoming trial, emphasizing that all other enforcement means had been exhausted.

This decision concerns the award of costs following a successful application for specific performance of a real estate transaction.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $108,000.

The respondents argued the costs were excessive and that they lacked the means to pay.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct throughout the litigation warranted such a sanction.

The judge cited the respondents' actions in raising baseless issues, causing delay and friction, the asymmetrical importance of the issues to the parties, and the advancement of unproved allegations of dishonesty as key factors justifying the award.

The court determined the quantum of costs for the plaintiff, Turn-Key Projects, following a remittal from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had found that Turn-Key was the successful party at trial, overturning the trial judge's initial decision to award no costs.

The court considered the parties' unreasonable positions on costs and applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the plaintiff's partial success at trial (recovering 64% of the principal amount sought).

The court awarded Turn-Key $25,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property needed for a land assembly development.

The respondents repudiated the agreement, arguing that the wife was coerced into signing and did not sign all portions of the document.

The court found that a binding agreement was formed, rejecting the coercion claims as unsupported and finding the signatures sufficient.

The court granted specific performance, holding that the property was unique to the applicant's development plans and damages would be inadequate.

Following a summary trial regarding unpaid invoices under a construction contract, the plaintiff was awarded a principal judgment with a set-off granted to the defendant.

The court received written submissions on prejudgment interest and costs.

The court clarified that prejudgment interest would be awarded in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, as the plaintiff's Statement of Claim did not plead the 24% rate requested at trial.

On costs, the court found that success was divided both financially and contextually, and ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant condominium corporation for unpaid invoices totaling $96,622.42 relating to a corridor refurbishment project.

The defendant claimed set-offs for various construction deficiencies, including missing suite numbers, carpet gaps, and defective painting.

The court found the plaintiff breached the contract by unilaterally changing the paint brand and held the plaintiff responsible for the missing suite numbers and carpet gaps.

The court allowed set-offs totaling $35,193.32 and granted judgment to the plaintiff for the remaining balance of $61,429.10 plus prejudgment interest.