Tyler McLean

The plaintiffs brought an action for specific performance or damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants, represented by a non-lawyer litigation guardian, argued the agreement was invalid due to incapacity, fraud, and failure to deliver the deposit on time.

The court struck the defendants' pleadings because a non-lawyer cannot act as a representative plaintiff under Rule 15.01.

On the merits, the court found the defendants committed an anticipatory breach.

Specific performance was denied as the property was not unique, but the court awarded $975,000 in damages based on the property's increased value.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arising from a failed real estate transaction, and the plaintiffs responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance or damages.

The defendants also initiated a third-party claim against the real estate agents and their daughter, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, duress, and forgery.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that the multiple intertwined issues, conflicting evidence, and credibility concerns required a full trial.

The motion judge remained seized of the matter for trial management.

The plaintiff, on behalf of his deceased father's estate, brought a motion to compel the passing of accounts regarding the spending of his father's deceased wife, who had acted as the father's Attorney for Property for nearly ten years.

The defendant, the wife's daughter and estate trustee, opposed the motion, arguing she could not account for her mother's spending and would be unfairly prejudiced.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there is no statutory limitation period for passing accounts, ordering one in these circumstances would result in a clear injustice, and the issues surrounding suspicious property transfers were better suited for the outstanding main action.

The defendants (Smith Defendants) brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel (McLean) due to an alleged conflict of interest and to prevent the use of allegedly privileged documents.

The plaintiffs (Milicevic/Mazzone) brought cross-motions to remove the defendants' counsel (Rapley), to amend their pleadings, and for orders regarding document production and privilege.

The court dismissed both motions to remove counsel, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the parties' choice of counsel and noting the tactical nature of the motions.

The court also ruled on the privilege of various documents, finding that joint retainer documents were not privileged as between the joint clients, and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their cross-claim in the Toronto action while denying the withdrawal of their indemnity claim in the Brampton action.