Ajay Pal Singh Duggal

The appellant appealed an order from a trial management conference judge who, on her own initiative, struck his pleadings on financial issues for failure to make disclosure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the unopposed appeal and set aside the order, finding procedural unfairness because there was no motion to strike before the judge and the parties were not given an opportunity to make submissions.

The applicant sought recognition of a 50 percent ownership interest in residential property, rectification of title, and partition and sale after a later registered transfer reduced her interest to 5 percent.

The court found that the respondent had made a bona fide gift of a one-half interest to the applicant in 2013 within the context of an intimate relationship, and that the subsequent transfer was executed without the applicant's knowledge or consent.

Treating the impugned transfer instrument as fraudulent and void under the Land Titles Act, the court ordered rectification of the register.

The court further held that the respondent had shown no basis to resist partition and sale under the Partition Act and ordered the property listed for sale with equal division of net proceeds.

Following a successful application for damages arising from the wrongful termination of a commercial lease, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful tenant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 after obtaining damages and return of a security deposit totaling $49,735 following adjustment by the Court of Appeal.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the effect of a prior offer to settle.

Although the tenant’s offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 49.10, the court considered it under Rule 49.13 and found the landlord should have reasonably accepted it.

Costs were awarded partly on a substantial indemnity scale for the hearing and partially on a partial indemnity basis for the remaining work.

The appellant landlord wrongfully terminated a commercial lease.

The application judge awarded the respondent tenant damages based on the rent the tenant would have received from its subtenants, but failed to deduct the rent the tenant would have owed the landlord for the remainder of the lease term.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, correcting the calculation error to properly reflect expectation damages, reducing the damage award from $130,600 to $35,600.

A commercial tenant sought damages after its landlord terminated the lease, changed the locks, and leased the premises directly to the tenant’s sub‑tenants.

The court considered whether the landlord complied with the notice requirements under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act before exercising a right of re‑entry.

The court held that the notices relied upon failed to specify breaches, provide a reasonable opportunity to remedy them, or require compensation as required by the statute.

The landlord’s re‑entry was therefore unlawful.

Damages were awarded based primarily on the tenant’s lost sublease rent for the remaining lease term and the return of the security deposit.