Andrei Florin Dobrogeanu

The defendants sought costs after the plaintiff's action, which included allegations of fraud and sought over $3.7 million in damages, was administratively dismissed.

The plaintiff had delayed the action for years, failed to set it down for trial, and ultimately abandoned the claims while leaving the serious allegations of fraud hanging over the defendants.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct worthy of sanction and awarded the defendants costs of the action fixed at $38,535 on a substantial indemnity basis, plus $3,750 for the costs of the motion.

The appellant landlord appealed an application judge's decision regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The landlord challenged the interpretation of 'audited statement' for Additional Rent and the finding that promissory estoppel prevented the collection of rent prior to January 1, 2021.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge's interpretation of the lease.

The Court also upheld the finding of promissory estoppel, noting that the tenant had detrimentally relied on the landlord's representation that rent would not be charged until January 2021.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders and decisions of the lower court judge, as well as a motion for a stay pending appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $1,300 for the leave motion and $700 for the stay motion to the responding parties.

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful application for an order requiring the respondent to comply with its obligation under a commercial lease to provide audited statements and finding the respondent estopped from claiming rent prior to January 1, 2021.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant, applying Rule 49.10 costs consequences based on an unaccepted settlement offer.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's partial abandonment of certain relief claims warranted a reduction in costs, finding that the abandoned claims were no longer necessary once the respondent produced the required documents.

The plaintiff, Esquire Rose Investments Corporation, sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant Matthew Moxness’s failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that liability rested with a corporation formed after the agreement, not with him personally, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court found that the corporation did not properly adopt the agreement and that the defendant remained personally liable.

The court also found the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate damages and awarded $80,000, but denied additional claims for rental income, legal fees, and carrying costs due to insufficient proof.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of an application by 2811230 Ontario Limited to delete an Order to Comply from title to its property.

The court awards elevated costs to the City of Niagara Falls, finding the application was without merit and brought for an improper motive, and that the applicant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The court considered whether the respondent landlord was required to provide audited statements of Additional Rent under a commercial lease, and whether the landlord was estopped from claiming rent for a period prior to January 1, 2021.

The court found that the lease unambiguously required audited statements, meaning statements verified by an independent accountant, and that the respondent had not fulfilled this obligation.

The court also found that the landlord was estopped from claiming rent for the period prior to January 1, 2021, due to a course of conduct and representations made to the applicant tenant, and ordered the landlord to provide audited statements and reimburse any overpayments.

The applicant, 2811230 Ontario Limited, sought an order deleting the registration of an Order to Comply (OTC) from title to its property in Niagara Falls, arguing that the OTC prevented sale or refinancing.

The City opposed, maintaining the OTC was properly registered to notify the public of unpermitted construction.

The court denied the applicant’s request for an adjournment and ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the OTC remained valid and that its registration served the public interest in consumer protection and safety.

The court held that the applicant’s objective was to conceal the OTC from prospective buyers or mortgagees, contrary to the Act’s purpose.

This endorsement addresses costs for two motions: John James's motion to remove Lory James as Estate Trustee and appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), and Lory James and Glacier Trading Corporation's motion to strike John's counterclaim.

The court previously granted the appointment of an ETDL and dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim.

The court determined that costs should be fixed immediately rather than reserved for trial, emphasizing the "loser pays" principle in estate litigation.

John James was deemed the overall successful party on his motion, and entirely successful on the motion to strike.

The court awarded John James $10,000 in costs against Lory James personally for his motion, and $5,500 jointly and severally against Lory James and Glacier Trading Corporation for their unsuccessful motion to strike.

The appellant rented a unit and subsequently rented a bedroom in that unit to the respondent.

The appellant locked the respondent out of the unit without an eviction order.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the respondent was a subtenant and awarded damages for unlawful eviction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Board erred in its application of the subtenancy provisions, as the appellant had not vacated the unit for a specified term.

However, the Court upheld the Board's remedial order, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act still applied because the appellant met the broad statutory definition of a landlord and the respondent met the definition of a tenant.