After failed real estate transaction, plaintiff alleged psychological distress, loss of vision
In a cost endorsement following lengthy litigation arising from a real estate transaction that did not go through, the Ontario Superior Court refused to entertain a personal injury claim and made the plaintiffs pay $34,455.90 in substantial indemnity costs.
The case was Sun v. Teefy Development, 2026 ONSC 4983. In fall 2016, the plaintiff Ms. Sun agreed to purchase a new home, to be constructed by the defendant Teefy Development.
The defendant Mr. Cheng was a real estate agent who had encouraged Ms. Sun to buy the property, while the defendant Mr. Wang was a realtor who had helped her get into Teefy’s sales office.
Ms. Sun ultimately defaulted on the transaction, which meant that Teefy had to resell the home at a loss.
In a February 2021 trial judgment, the court awarded Teefy damages of $240,562.78, including pre-judgment interest, plus $30,000 in costs. Ms. Sun’s appeal against this judgment failed.
Ms. Sun sued Mr. Cheng and Mr. Wang, whom she unsuccessfully attempted to characterize as her agents for the transaction. The court summarily dismissed this suit.
Ms. Sun then sued Ms. Shi, her trial lawyer, and Mr. Latimer, Teefy’s trial lawyer. The court dismissed this suit as vexatious under r. 2.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194.
Next, Ms. Sun sued Teefy. The court also dismissed this suit under r. 2.01.
In December 2024, the plaintiffs Ms. Sun and her husband initiated the present claim against Teefy, Mr. Latimer, Mr. Cheng, and Mr. Wang. Last May 11, the court dismissed the claim against Mr. Latimer on consent.
Justice R. Cary Boswell of the Superior Court found it difficult to understand the legal basis for the plaintiffs’ claim and their requested relief.
Ms. Sun said she was seeking damages for personal injuries, including psychological distress, reputational harm, lost earning capacity, and loss of vision.
On July 13, Justice Boswell struck out the plaintiffs’ claim against the rest of the defendants upon determining that:
This September, Justice Boswell awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs. The judge found the following amounts in the defendants’ favour fair, reasonable, and proportionate:
Justice Boswell found full indemnity costs unwarranted. However, the judge held that the case satisfied the exceptional threshold standard for elevated costs.
Justice Boswell did not expect the self-represented plaintiffs to comprehend all the complexities of civil law and of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, the judge emphasized that the plaintiffs were not unsophisticated, were experienced, were familiar with the concept of costs, and were aware of the reasonably expected range of cost awards.
Stressing that the litigation had fully run its course, the judge found that the plaintiffs:
In the costs endorsement, Justice Boswell noted that the defendants:
Here are some other recent Ontario Superior Court decisions involving personal injury claims.
In a personal injury proceeding arising from a motor vehicle collision, the court issued a July 17 decision confirming a settlement and itemized costs amounting to $1.1951 million, then awarding additional amounts for interest, substantial indemnity costs for the tort action, and partial indemnity costs for a hearing.
In a personal injury case, the court made a June 17 decision finding nothing untoward about a contingency fee arrangement that imposed a proposed fee of 33 percent for tort claims and an alternate hourly rate of $900.
On June 1, a judge dismissed a personal injury action and directed the plaintiff, who was previously found a vexatious litigant, to communicate with the defendant or the court only by delivering hard-copy materials.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
