Veronica Sylvia Marson

The plaintiff, as estate trustee of the deceased vendor's estate, sought damages for breach of contract arising from the defendant's failure to complete the purchase and sale of residential property.

The defendant was noted in default after his statement of defence was struck out.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement by failing to close on the extended closing date of 9 September 2022.

The vendor subsequently resold the property 82 days later for $70,000 less than the defendant's agreed purchase price.

The court awarded damages comprising the price differential, property taxes, utilities, home maintenance expenses, legal fees, and living expenses incurred in anticipation of closing, less the defendant's deposit with accumulated interest and pre-judgment interest.

The Applicant mother sought costs following a settled disclosure motion, while the Respondent father sought partial indemnity costs, claiming the motion was unnecessary.

The court found the father's ongoing lack of compliance and delays with financial disclosure to be unreasonable conduct.

The mother was deemed the successful party on the substantial issue of disclosure, despite the motion settling.

The court awarded the mother elevated fixed costs of $2,800, finding the father's conduct warranted such an award but did not reach the threshold of bad faith for full indemnity.

The father's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the continued validity and use of a registered right of way over the respondents' properties.

The respondents argued the right of way was extinguished or abandoned due to the construction of an alternate public road, abuse of right, or implied release, and sought to modify or extinguish it.

The court found the right of way remained in full force and effect, rejecting the respondents' arguments for extinguishment or abandonment.

However, the court permitted the respondents to erect unlocked gates and signs to restrict use to deeded owners and their guests.

The defendant Belfor moved for a declaration that audio recordings made by the plaintiff of conversations with its former lawyers were not subject to solicitor-client privilege, arguing deemed or implied waiver due to inadvertent disclosure and the plaintiff's state of mind being in issue.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no deemed waiver as legal advice was not material to the claim, and no implied waiver despite counsel's delay, emphasizing that privilege belongs to the client and no unfairness would result from its maintenance.

A client appealed an assessment officer’s report confirming a law firm’s legal fees arising from the settlement of a personal injury action.

The client alleged the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction due to a dispute about the retainer, challenged credibility findings, and argued the assessed fees were unreasonable.

The court held that the dispute concerned the amount recoverable under the retainer rather than the existence of a retainer, leaving jurisdiction intact under the Solicitors’ Act.

Applying the deferential standard governing review of assessments, the court found no error in principle and upheld the officer’s reliance on quantum meruit and the factors from Cohen v. Kealey & Blaney.

The client’s application was dismissed and the law firm’s application to confirm the assessment report was granted.