Touma v Touma

In Touma v Touma, the plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged agreement from 1995 that involved the transfer of a half share in a property to himself and his wife. The dispute arose when the defendant, who was the other half-owner of the property, failed to register the transfer as per the agreement. The plaintiff filed proceedings to compel the defendant to transfer the property as agreed, but the case was settled before a determination was reached. Consent orders were entered, requiring the defendant to facilitate the transfer, and the summons was dismissed. The plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant had unreasonably delayed the transfer before the proceedings began, but the court found that it could not make findings about the terms of the 1995 agreement due to the settlement. Neither party was held to have acted unreasonably during the proceedings.

The court examined the nature of the dispute and the procedural history, noting that the case was resolved through settlement and consent orders. The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had unreasonably delayed the transfer before the proceedings and whether either party acted unreasonably during the litigation. The court held that it could not make definitive findings about the 1995 agreement due to the settlement, and therefore, the court could not determine whether the defendant had unreasonably delayed the transfer. Additionally, the court found that neither party acted unreasonably during the proceedings, leading to an order that each party bear their own costs.

The court's reasoning was based on the inability to ascertain the terms of the 1995 agreement due to the settlement of the case. The court noted that it could not make findings on the merits of the alleged agreement, which meant it could not determine if there had been an unreasonable delay in effecting the transfer. Furthermore, the court found that neither party acted unreasonably during the proceedings, resulting in an order for each party to bear their own costs. The court concluded that it was not in a position to make findings about the substantive agreement or the conduct of the parties during the litigation. The final orders of the court reflected this reasoning by dismissing the summons and ordering that each party bear their own costs.