Aleksander Jovanovic

This is a motion for approval of a class action settlement concerning incidents of glass falling from balconies at Festival Tower, a condominium in Toronto.

The representative plaintiffs sought court approval for the settlement agreement, appointment of a claims administrator, approval of the distribution program, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court granted the orders sought, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the comparatively minor loss of balcony use compared to similar cases.

The court considered the risks of litigation, including novel claims for loss of use and enjoyment, and the challenges in establishing liability and aggregate damages.

This appeal addressed the Ontario court's jurisdiction over an action that overlapped with earlier proceedings in Nova Scotia involving the same parties.

The appellant sought to stay the Ontario action, arguing lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and that Nova Scotia was the more convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal, conducting a fresh analysis due to incomplete lower court reasons, affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction simpliciter but found Nova Scotia to be clearly the more appropriate forum.

This decision was based on the significant overlap of issues and the high risk of inconsistent findings between the two actions.

The Ontario action was stayed on an interim basis.

The plaintiff, having been wholly successful at a three-day trial, sought costs.

The plaintiff had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was less than the damages awarded at trial.

The defendants failed to provide costs submissions.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $36,102.54.

The court also ordered the release of $23,000 previously paid into court by the plaintiff as security for costs.

A commercial landlord sued a tenant and indemnifier for unpaid rent after the tenant abandoned leased industrial premises before the end of a fixed‑term lease.

The tenant alleged fundamental breach by the landlord based on inadequate security following multiple break‑ins and failure to pay a tenant improvement allowance, and counterclaimed for alleged lost business profits.

The court held the landlord had no contractual obligation to enhance security measures within the tenant’s premises and had fulfilled its obligations under the lease, including payment of the inducement once conditions were met.

The tenant’s abandonment constituted a clear breach of the lease, and the landlord had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its damages by re‑leasing the premises.

The counterclaim for speculative business losses was dismissed for lack of evidentiary support and absence of landlord negligence.