A. Dick

The plaintiff, a payday loan business, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant in its commercial lease.

The covenant prohibited the landlord from leasing space in the plaza to competing businesses.

The landlord leased an adjacent unit to a competitor offering installment loans.

The court found that the competitor's business was sufficiently similar to violate the restrictive covenant.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test with a strong prima facie case standard, the court granted the injunction, ordering the landlord to comply with the exclusivity provision and restraining the competitor from operating its business at the plaza.

Following a trial under the Construction Lien Act, the successful contractor sought substantial indemnity costs after obtaining judgment for unpaid construction work and successfully defending a counterclaim.

The court considered factors under Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers, proportionality, the complexity of the proceeding, and litigation conduct.

The contractor did not achieve a result better than its Rule 49 offer to settle and therefore was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

The court nevertheless found the contractor overwhelmingly successful and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were fixed at $108,943.67 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

A contractor commenced an action to recover payment under a fixed-price construction contract after leaving a renovation project when the owner refused to pay a milestone invoice.

The owner counterclaimed for completion costs, deficiencies, delay, and lost rental income.

The court held that the owner’s design changes altered the sequence of work and made the contractual milestone conditions impossible to satisfy, giving rise to an obligation to renegotiate milestone payments in good faith.

By refusing to negotiate or make any interim payment after the contractor completed the mezzanine stage, the owner repudiated the contract.

The contractor was entitled to quantum meruit compensation for services and materials supplied, allowable extras, overhead and profit, and lost profit on the remaining contract work.

Claims for delay, lost rental income, and most deficiencies were rejected, and the construction lien was held to have been preserved and perfected in time.