Archive for ‘Case Comment’
A recent decision provides another reminder of why prudent homebuyers should always insist on a home inspection.
The buyers agreed to purchase the property without making the sale conditional on a home inspection. However, the contract did include the right for the buyers to have two more viewings prior to closing.
During one of those viewings the buyers brought a family member with them who had experience in the construction industry to function as a home inspector. During the visit the family member, based on what he saw and was told from the seller and her partner, wondered whether there . . . [more]
The facts of the case are relatively straight forward.
The vendor signed a listing agreement with Ariston Realty Corp. (“Ariston”). The listing agreement contained a holdover clause which provided that the vendor would pay Ariston a commission of 5% of the sale price in the event that the property was sold within six months after the expiry of the listing agreement to any party to whom Ariston introduced the property . . . [more]
In an unusual case, Justice Nordheimer of the Superior Court of Justice has overturned the result of a youth soccer match.
The Cobras defeated the Strikers 2 – 1 in the semi-final match of the Ontario Cup in the Under 16 Boys Tier 1 Division.
After the match, the Strikers alleged that the Cobras had improperly used six players as “call-ups”. The Ontario Soccer Association (“OSA”) sent notice of the Protest to the Cobras.
A few days later the Cobras received another email from the OSA raising a new issue regarding the semi-final match. In particular, the OSA was . . . [more]
A recent family law decision applied the existing legal principles relating to the awarding of legal costs to self-represented litigants. These principles were first set out by the Court of Appeal over 15 years ago.
– a self-represented litigant does not have an automatic right to costs;
– the matter remains fully within the discretion of the trial judge;
– to be considered eligible for costs, the self-represented litigant must demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to do work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct the litigation and in doing so incurred an opportunity cost . . . [more]
The thing about writing for a blog (especially one that commits you to weekly posts) is that often times you can only barely introduce a topic or idea.
And undoubtedly one of the best things about blogs is that cursory introductions are totally fine. Want popcorn commentary on a landmark decision from the country’s highest court? Bam. Here you go.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s October 2, 2014 majority decision regarding the (non) constitutionality of pricey court fees in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59, is big news here in BC. . . . [more]