Alessandra Nosko

Following a trial to determine the Gross Rentable Area of a leased premises, both parties claimed success and sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant to be the successful party, as the determined area was significantly higher than the plaintiff's position, resulting in substantial additional rent over the lease term.

The court awarded the defendant costs but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive photocopying disbursements and time spent on an unsuccessful argument regarding BOMA standards.

In a commercial lease dispute concerning a hospital building developed through a public-private partnership, the court determined the gross rentable area used to calculate annual basic rent.

The lease projected a gross rentable area of 135,000 square feet but failed to properly define that term, and the landlord's architect never issued the certificate contemplated by the lease.

Applying modern contractual interpretation principles and limiting surrounding-circumstances evidence to objective facts known at the time of contracting, the court held that the parties intended gross rentable area to correspond to the architect's gross floor area concept rather than the entire building area urged by the defendant.

The court fixed the gross rentable area at 142,907.5 square feet and left the parties to calculate rent payable from October 1, 2013 onward.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding whether a prior court order required the commencement of a fresh action with new pleadings, productions, and examinations for discovery in a dispute concerning the calculation of gross rentable area under a commercial lease.

The respondent opposed the need for a new action and sought to proceed directly to trial on an expedited basis.

The court found that the dispute centered on expert methodology rather than the parties’ intentions or lease validity, and that the lease contained a mechanism for determining gross rentable area.

The court also noted prejudice to the property owner caused by ongoing litigation preventing the sale of the building.

Directions were issued converting the matter into an action proceeding to expedited trial and treating prior application evidence as partial discovery.

Multiple tobacco manufacturer defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $300,000 after withdrawing previously scheduled motions to strike the Crown’s statement of claim in a health care cost recovery action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

The defendants argued they were the successful parties because their motions prompted extensive amendments to the pleading and that the Crown delayed notifying them of its intention to amend.

The court held that the amendments addressed only some of the alleged deficiencies and that significant legal issues remained unresolved when the defendants chose to withdraw the motions.

As a result, success on the motions was considered divided.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The appellants brought a motion to stay their own appeal pending the trial judge's determination of several outstanding issues following a complex, multi-party trial involving allegations of fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.

The respondents opposed the stay, arguing the issues relating to them were discrete and finally disposed of.

The Court of Appeal held that the 'interests of justice' test, rather than the RJR-Macdonald test, applies when a party seeks to stay an appeal pending another body's decision.

Balancing the need for expeditious justice against the benefits of a single appeal, the court granted a 120-day stay of the appeal, on the condition that the appellants immediately order the necessary transcripts.

In a contested federal election application, the appeal examined whether voting process defects required annulment where the vote margin was narrow.

The majority adopted a substantive test requiring proof both of a statutory irregularity tied to entitlement and that a person not entitled to vote actually voted.

It held multiple disqualified ballots should be restored because the evidentiary record supported entitlement or failed to prove an entitlement defect on the required standard.

The remaining invalid votes did not meet the threshold to overturn the result.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the fresh-evidence motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant did not pursue his costs appeal, so leave to appeal costs was denied.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $8,000.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a California judgment of approximately (US)$17 million against the defendant Jay Chiang and sought a declaration that the debt survives his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the BIA.

The plaintiffs also brought a second action alleging that Jay Chiang and numerous family members engaged in fraudulent conveyances and a conspiracy to hide assets and frustrate collection efforts.

The court enforced the California judgment in the amount of (US)$9,678,832 but declined to declare that the debt survives bankruptcy, finding no fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs.

The court found Jay Chiang liable for fraudulent conveyances and conspiracy, but dismissed the claims against most of the other family members, finding they were unwitting conduits used by Jay Chiang.

Following a successful application contesting a federal election in which the court declared the election null and void due to voting irregularities, the applicant sought $90,000 in costs.

The court considered whether any respondent could properly be characterized as an unsuccessful party responsible for paying those costs.

The successful candidate was found to have done nothing wrong and stood in a similar position to the applicant, while the Chief Electoral Officer maintained neutrality and could not legally take positions favouring any candidate.

Given the public interest nature of the proceeding and the absence of a party properly liable for costs, the court declined to award costs.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the applicant’s security for costs deposit was ordered returned.

The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate in a federal election decided by a plurality of 26 votes, brought an application to contest the election under s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act.

The applicant argued that irregularities in voter registration and vouching affected the result.

The court found that the onus was on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that irregularities occurred and affected the result.

The court identified 79 votes that were cast irregularly due to failures in registration and vouching procedures.

Because the number of irregular votes exceeded the plurality, the court declared the election null and void.