Victor Nnamdi Opara

The moving defendants, 1171328 Ontario Ltd. and Living Properties Inc., brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action, arising from flooding incidents in 2013, was commenced in 2015, and no significant steps were taken by the plaintiff to advance it since 2018.

The court found the delay to be inordinate (7.5 years from commencement, 6 years of inactivity), inexcusable (no cogent explanation provided despite multiple opportunities), and prejudicial to the defendants (rebuttable presumption of prejudice not overcome, actual prejudice due to lost documents and unavailable witnesses).

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.

This decision concerns a reference for the calculation of damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The vendor, 400 East Mall GP Inc., sought damages from the purchaser, Olanrewaju Omololu, after the purchaser breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The court assessed damages for loss of bargain and consequential damages.

It determined that various 'Additional Charges' claimed by the vendor were not recoverable due to insufficient evidence and failure to mitigate.

The court awarded the vendor $97,835.92 in total damages, after crediting the purchaser's deposit and offsetting occupancy fees against carrying costs.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed result.

Following a successful motion compelling answers to undertakings and refusals from discovery, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the conduct of counsel and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court criticized the responding party’s failure to comply with undertakings, delays in responding, and counsel’s conduct during the motion.

Although the moving party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, the court reduced the award to partial indemnity in light of proportionality and the plaintiff’s financial circumstances.

Costs were fixed at $8,728.22 payable to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to vary a prior costs order requiring payment of $5,800, arguing impecuniosity, and also sought to place the action under case management.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to establish impecuniosity, noting the absence of current medical evidence, incomplete financial disclosure, and unexplained inconsistencies regarding a previously initiated appeal.

The court further held that the plaintiff’s significant delay in bringing the motion, and failure to raise impecuniosity when the original costs order was made, weighed strongly against granting relief.

The request for case management was also rejected, as the action was a routine personal injury matter and court resource constraints did not justify special management.

The motion was dismissed and the prior costs order remained payable.