Generally, buyers who are unable to close the purchase of real estate risk losing their deposits, even if the seller suffers no loss. However, there are instances where a seller would be required to return the buyer's deposit regardless of several factors.
You signed the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “APS”) to purchase a new development property, you paid the deposit, but the seller has since breached their own obligations under the APS. You are now having second thoughts about moving forward with the purchase of that new home. Can you get out of the APS?
The Supreme Court of Canada in Smith v. Jones described solicitor-client privilege as the highest privilege recognized by the courts. In its recently issued judgement in Continental Bank of Canada v. Continental Currency Exchange Canada Inc. 2022 ONSC 647 CanLII, the Superior Court of Justice underscored the sanctity of the privilege and provided a stark reminder to litigants of the powerful remedies available to the court when an opposing party accesses confidential and privileged information which is relevant to the issues in the litigation.
One of the most frustrating times for litigants is when a court issues an order against their adversary and it is ignored with impunity. In many cases, the non-compliant litigant is given several chances to adhere to the court’s order without facing sanctions. Watching your adversary flout the rules and treat court orders as suggestions can make the innocent litigant feel as if the court’s orders can be undermined or ignored. This angst gives rise to frustration, bewilderment and the question: is there a way to deal (effectively) with parties that disregard court orders?
The legal system largely responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by being forced to take advantage of technological advances that had long been ignored. The Rules of Civil Procedure were updated to allow for service by email and filing using online portals; the system transitioned to Zoom hearings and using CaseLines for working with documents. Many of these changes were, according to most in the profession, long overdue and are likely to remain the norm even after the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us.
Clients place a considerable amount of trust and confidence in their professional advisors (hereafter referred to simply as “professionals”) in the belief that, with their professional expertise, a particular outcome may be achieved. When the professional’s acts or omissions cause the client to suffer loss, the client is often faced with the following choice: sue the professional and pursue their legal rights through the courts, or allow the professional to take steps to try and remediate the issue.
The purpose of this article is to provide counsel with practical advice concerning the strict legal and procedural requirements which will need to be met before an Ontario court will recognize and enforce a U.S. judgment.
This blog seeks to explore and review “boomerang” and “partial” summary judgment motions, as well as to provide a brief overview on summary judgment motions in general.
Courts may order a plaintiff to pay money into court in certain prescribed situations as security for the defendant’s anticipated costs of the litigation. This is available to a defendant in circumstances where there is a likelihood that a defendant will have difficulty recovering costs from a plaintiff at the end of the litigation if the plaintiff loses and is ordered to pay costs to the defendant.
The wild swings in cryptocurrencies have created ripple effects in the world’s economy. This new type of currency has grown in value and popularity, in part, by the increased adoption by retail and institutional investors alike. There is little doubt that litigation will follow. One recent case is Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Costodian Inc. et al. Justice Hainey’s decision is quite interesting, because it provides a concise summary of how the respondent cryptocurrency exchange functioned and how complicated the process really is.