Albert Gerrard Formosa

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal of her appeal, which had been dismissed after she failed to attend a hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the tenant had done nothing for two months despite knowing the landlord was seeking a dismissal.

The tenant was ordered to vacate the property and pay fixed costs of $3,200.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent for wrongful termination of a commercial lease and the aborted sale of the respondent's business.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability, agreeing that the appellant wrongfully terminated the lease and unreasonably withheld consent to assign it.

However, the Court varied the damages award, reducing it by $10,000 to account for legal fees the respondent had not actually paid.

The respondent's cross-appeal for punitive and aggravated damages was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of preliminary procedural rulings made by a university Faculty Disciplinary Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the discipline proceedings had not yet been completed and there was a right of appeal to the University Appeal Committee.

The court found no evidence of corruption or bias that would justify interfering at this stage.

The appellants appealed an order amending a consent judgment regarding the submission of plans for the removal of support beams.

The motion judge amended the judgment to reflect the mutual intent of the parties, as the original language did not accomplish the goal of filing plans that would satisfy the City of Toronto's requirements for a building permit.

The Court of Appeal found the rectification was justified and dismissed the appeal, extending the deadline for submitting the plans on consent.

Following the release of the main decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario received further submissions on costs.

The Court ordered that the costs of the application for leave, the motion for leave to appeal, and the appeal be awarded to the appellant in the cause.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence an action against a trustee administering a court-approved proposal.

The Court of Appeal held that on a s. 215 motion the judge must only determine whether there is a factual basis for the claim and whether it discloses a cause of action, not finally decide the merits.

The motions judge erred by conclusively interpreting the proposal and the trustee's duties, thereby exceeding jurisdiction on the threshold application.

The court also declined to refuse leave on the basis that the appellant should have proceeded under s. 37 instead.

Leave to commence the action was granted.