Yuvraj Katodia

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for $75,000, representing the cost incurred to extend the closing of a property they were purchasing, due to the defendants' failure to close on a related sale.

The defendants admitted breach of contract but disputed the remoteness and mitigation of damages.

The court applied principles of remoteness, particularly the Hadley v. Baxendale rule, and found that it was reasonably foreseeable for sellers to rely on proceeds from one sale to fund another, even if not explicitly communicated.

The court also found that the plaintiffs adequately mitigated their damages by paying the extension fee, which avoided potentially higher costs.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $75,000.

M.K. brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to a trial without unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 858 days (28 months and 7 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice established in R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted 224 days for the COVID-19 pandemic (an exceptional circumstance) and 50 days for defence-caused delay (due to lack of diligence in filing a trial scheduling form).

The net delay remained 19 months and 1 week (578 days), which was presumptively unreasonable.

The Crown failed to rebut this presumption, with the court noting a lack of institutional resources and flexibility as a prominent cause of delay.

Consequently, a stay of proceedings was granted.