W. Chapman

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, and the plaintiffs subsequently re-sold the property at a lower price.

The court found that the arm's length re-sale price was prima facie evidence of the property's fair market value and that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the plaintiffs' mitigation efforts.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for the difference in sale prices plus related expenses.

The defendants brought a motion for contempt against the plaintiff, alleging the plaintiff breached interim and interlocutory injunctions prohibiting the use, removal, or modification of conduit supplied and installed by the defendants.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the orders were clear, the plaintiff had knowledge of them, and the plaintiff intentionally breached the orders by connecting fibre optic cable in the prohibited conduit.

The plaintiff was found in contempt, with the penalty phase to follow.

The defendants brought a motion under section 44 of the Construction Act to reduce the security posted for a construction lien registered by the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued that the lien claim included non-lienable services (real estate consulting, property management) and exaggerated amounts (labour hours, demolition, framing, drywall).

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for real estate consulting and property management fees were non-lienable and that other claims, particularly for labour, were exaggerated and unsubstantiated.

The motion was granted, and the security was significantly reduced from $173,125 to $15,903.19.

The applicant purchasers brought a motion under the Vendors and Purchasers Act to dispute a $152,640 increase in the purchase price of a pre-construction home.

The respondent builder claimed the increase was justified under an 'added cost adjustment' clause due to pandemic-related supply issues and provided a statutory declaration.

The court held that the clause only applied to costs directly caused by changes to building or zoning requirements, not general pandemic responses.

Furthermore, the Tarion warranty schedule did not permit the adjustment.

The court declared the builder was not entitled to the price increase.

The moving party contractor sought to declare two construction liens preserved by the responding party sub-subcontractor as expired.

The central issue was the interpretation of the transition provisions in s. 87.3 of the Construction Act, specifically whether the former 45-day or current 60-day lien preservation period applied when the prime contract was entered into before July 1, 2018, but the subcontracts were entered into after.

The court held that the legislative scheme applies consistently to all persons involved in the same improvement based on the date of the prime contract.

Consequently, the former 45-day period applied, the liens were declared expired, and the posted security was ordered returned.

The plaintiff, Devi Financial Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendants (Everwood Place Ltd. and Hyde Park Crossing Ltd.) for a mortgage debt and against Trevor Bond on a personal guarantee.

The defendants argued that Mr. Bond signed the guarantee only as an agent for the corporations and challenged the adequacy of default notice and the inclusion of certain fees (a three-month bonus interest and an administrative fee).

The court applied the Hryniak v. Mauldin test for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The judge determined that Mr. Bond, a sophisticated businessman, clearly signed the guarantee in his personal capacity, and his "belief" to the contrary was commercially untenable.

The court also found that proper notice was given and that the bonus interest and administrative fee were contractually recoverable.