In the case of Seif v. Hamilton dated September 29, 2023, the plaintiff, Adam Seif, had sought either a preservation order under rule 45.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure or a certificate of pending litigation under s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act (2)and rule 42.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion had aimed to prevent the defendant, Dr. Judith Hamilton, from selling her home at 21 Donwoods Dr., located in the upscale Hoggs Hollow neighborhood of Toronto, where homes were valued up to $13.8 million. Mr. Seif had held a $2,050,000 agreement to purchase Dr. Hamilton's two-bedroom bungalow and had sought legal measures to stop her from selling it to a third party. At that early stage of their contentious legal battle, Mr. Seif, a lawyer, had asserted a reasonably strong prima facie claim for breach of contract and specific performance, while Dr. Hamilton, a retired psychiatrist, had defended with the argument that the agreement had been unconscionable and had lacked contractual certainty or consensus ad item on its terms. She had also contended that equitable considerations had weighed against specific performance. Ultimately, the court had decided against granting a preservation order, deeming it peculiar and unnecessary in a specific performance case. Instead, they had granted a certificate of pending litigation. The parties had agreed that the prevailing party in that motion should receive $18,000 in costs.