Thomas E. Sanderson

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The Receiver sought orders to approve a construction management contract and related financing for the Heart Lake Project, and to authorize amendments or disclaimers of pre-sale agreements for the Uptowns Project.

The court granted the relief, finding it was the best path to maximize stakeholder recovery, noting that the proposed amendments to pre-sale agreements offered homebuyers an option to retain value or claim deposits from a surety policy, and that disclaiming agreements was necessary for financing and project completion.

The court also approved sealing certain financial information to protect future marketability.

The applicants sought a declaration of possessory title over a three-foot strip of land abutting their cottage property.

The court found that while the applicants had actual possession of the disputed lands, they failed to establish an intention to exclude the true owners or that they effectively excluded them.

The disputed lands were open and accessible to the community, and the true owners frequently crossed and used the lands without restriction.

The application for adverse possession was dismissed.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside default foreclosure judgments obtained by the plaintiffs in 2014 regarding three properties.

The defendant argued he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs not to proceed with the actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's evidence of an oral agreement lacked credibility, the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, and the defendant lacked a plausible excuse for the delay or an arguable defence on the merits.

Following a judgment on the merits, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' and a non-party's vexatious conduct.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity costs were warranted, but reduced the requested amount by $15,000 to sanction the defendant's own witness for frustrating an examination.

Costs were fixed at $39,803.89, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs and the non-party.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for specific performance due to egregious litigation misconduct, the defendant brought a motion seeking forfeiture of a $200,000 deposit and an order making the non-party principal of one of the plaintiffs personally liable for costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' destruction and concealment of evidence made it impossible to determine who was at fault for the failed real estate transaction, warranting an adverse inference that the plaintiffs were not ready, willing, and able to close.

The court ordered the deposit forfeited to the defendant and held the non-party principal jointly and severally liable for costs due to his abusive litigation conduct, including the concealment of a related lawsuit between the plaintiffs.

The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

This addendum to the Reasons for Judgment corrects calculation errors identified by counsel for both parties.

The court revised six specific unit price items and an omitted item, leading to an increase in the total amount awarded to the plaintiff.

The final revised judgment requires the defendant to pay an increased sum plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant municipality for unpaid amounts under a unit-price contract for road reconstruction.

The claims included unpaid quantities of unit-price line items, unpaid claims for changes or extra work asserted during the project, and claims for changes and extras discovered during litigation.

The court first determined that the claims discovered during litigation were barred due to failure to provide timely notice, but the municipality had waived strict compliance with notice provisions for claims asserted during the project.

The court then analyzed each of the 36 individual claims, weighing the evidence of the parties' respective witnesses and records.

Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff $547,261.75 plus pre-judgment interest.