Anne M. Tardif

The respondent provided maintenance services to ten condominium corporations under two maintenance contracts.

The appellants terminated the winter maintenance contract but delayed notifying the respondent for several months to avoid jeopardizing completion of the summer contract.

The respondent performed extra unpaid work during this period in hopes of contract renewal.

The trial judge found the appellants breached the duty of honest performance by withholding termination information and accepting the unpaid work while knowing the contract would not be renewed.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the duty of honest performance does not require disclosure of termination decisions or restrict the exercise of contractual termination rights, and that the appellants' conduct, while potentially dishonourable, did not rise to the level of breach required under the good faith performance standard established in Bhasin v. Hrynew.

The applicant, 1179 Hunt Club Inc., and the respondent, Ottawa Medical Square Inc. (OMS), entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial condominium units.

The transaction failed to close.

Hunt Club sought to retain the $250,000 deposit and hold Ms. Mobarak, OMS's president, personally liable under a purported personal guarantee clause.

The court found that neither party was ready, willing, and able to close the transaction on the scheduled date, leading to the termination of the agreement.

Consequently, OMS was entitled to the return of its deposit.

The court also determined that the personal guarantee clause was ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, did not amount to a personal guarantee by Ms. Mobarak.

Even if it had, her obligations would have been discharged due to a subsequent reinstatement agreement that varied the original contract without her consent as guarantor.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order granting the respondents leave to amend their statement of claim to substitute the names of three doctors for "Dr. John Doe Anesthesiologist." The motion judge relied on the doctrine of misnomer and applied the "litigating finger" test, finding that the doctors would have known the claim was directed at them based on the notice of action, medical records, and their status as anesthesiologists.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the alternative finding based on the notice of action served within the limitation period.

The applicants, owners of a restaurant offering shisha, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the City of Ottawa from enforcing a bylaw prohibiting the use of water pipes in indoor public places, pending their Charter challenge.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm due to the corporate applicant's potential lack of standing for Charter damages.

However, the balance of convenience favoured the City, as the public interest in protecting health from second-hand smoke outweighed the applicants' financial losses and temporary limits on cultural traditions.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The applicants brought a motion to add Cindy Ravary as a defendant and to amend their Statement of Claim.

The court granted the motion, allowing the addition of Ms. Ravary and the proposed amendments, with the exception of the allegation of conspiracy.

The court found that Ms. Ravary had not demonstrated prejudice and that the proposed causes of action were prima facie meritorious.

The appellants appealed from an order dismissing their motion to strike claims for usurious interest and unlawful commissions in actions brought by the trustee in bankruptcy of the promoters of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

The appellants argued the order was final because it determined a question of law regarding whether the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the motion judge did not formally invoke the applicable rule for determining questions of law, the formal order simply dismissed the motion without making a binding determination, and the motion was premature as pleadings had not closed.

The appellant, Coliseum Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision that overturned an arbitrator's award in its favour regarding a commercial lease dispute with the City of Ottawa.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of Minutes of Settlement concerning the provision of an alternative site following the termination of Coliseum's lease at Frank Clair Stadium.

The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to review the application judge's decision to grant leave to appeal the arbitral award.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by substituting her own interpretation of the Minutes of Settlement, as the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable and owed deference.

The appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator's award of $2,240,000 in damages was reinstated.

In an addendum to a previous decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario modified its endorsement on consent of the parties to remit the quantification of damages to a different judge of the Superior Court of Justice, rather than the original motion judge.

The landlord appealed a summary judgment decision regarding its termination of a commercial lease.

The parties had orally agreed to extend the commencement date of the lease for at least one year.

The landlord later attempted to terminate the lease under a clause allowing termination if it could not deliver possession within six months of the commencement date.

The Court of Appeal held that the termination notice provided in December 2011 was out of time, as the commencement date remained April 1, 2011, and the landlord failed to exercise its termination right within the six-month window.

Judgment was granted in favour of the tenant for breach of contract.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted to the respondent tenant for breach of a commercial lease.

The motion judge had found that the parties made an oral agreement to extend the lease commencement date and that the appellants terminated the lease in bad faith.

The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that the motion judge's factual conclusions regarding the oral agreement were not supported by the evidence, and that he erred by relying on the unpleaded doctrine of part performance.

The Court deferred deciding whether to remit the matter or determine the issues itself, requesting further written submissions from the parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed its request for an increase in its chicken processing quota.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the date of rebasing was supported by evidence and reasonable.

The Court also held that the applicant could not rely on a contract it had expressly abandoned before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was not required to provide reasons for declining to depart from its usual policies.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent municipality sought partial indemnity costs of $27,321.55.

The applicant argued for no costs or symbolic costs, asserting he acted as a public interest litigant regarding municipal workplace harassment obligations.

The court applied the criteria for public interest litigants and awarded the respondent symbolic costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy farm operation and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy restricting the transfer and merger of milk quota.

They wished to permanently transfer the newly acquired quota to their home farm without renovating the purchased facilities or milking there for the required five years.

The Tribunal found the DFO's quota transfer restrictions valid and authorized by the Milk Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an exemption, finding the appellants' reasons did not justify circumventing the policy.

However, the Tribunal reduced the conditional penalty for failing to return the cows to the purchased farm from a 20% quota reduction to a 10% reduction.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy operation but only acquired a fraction of the associated land.

They moved the purchased herd to their home farm under a temporary shared facilities agreement, intending to renovate the purchased farm.

They later abandoned renovation plans and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy to permanently merge the quotas at their home farm.

The DFO denied the exemption and ordered the cows returned to the purchased farm, imposing a 20% quota reduction penalty if they failed to comply.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's denial of the exemption, finding the appellants' desire for efficiency did not justify circumventing quota transfer policies.

However, the Tribunal found the 20% penalty disproportionate and reduced it to 10%.

Le requérant, ancien maire et contribuable municipal, sollicitait un contrôle judiciaire, des déclarations et un mandamus relativement à une résolution municipale ayant maintenu le statu quo face à des plaintes de harcèlement au travail déposées contre un conseiller.

La cour a conclu que le différend n’était pas strictement théorique, mais que les réparations demandées n’auraient aucun effet pratique compte tenu de l’adoption subséquente d’une nouvelle résolution mandatant une enquête indépendante, du départ du conseiller visé du conseil et du litige civil déjà engagé par l’employé plaignant.

En appliquant les conditions du mandamus, la cour a jugé que la forme de l’enquête relevait d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire et que la municipalité n’avait pas agi de mauvaise foi en retenant une enquête confidentielle dans un contexte de litige.

La requête a été rejetée avec dépens à déterminer.

On a summary judgment motion in a commercial lease dispute, the moving party sought judgment on liability after the landlords purported to terminate a lease for delayed possession while pursuing a high-rise redevelopment.

The court held that a collateral oral agreement validly amended the lease to delay the commencement date, that the moving party had not taken possession within the meaning of the lease, and that the termination provision remained unavailable on the date relied upon.

The court further found that the landlords' invocation of the delayed possession clause was unreasonable and made in bad faith because the real reason for termination was the breakdown of negotiations over further amendments.

Summary judgment on liability for breach of lease was granted, with damages left for later determination.

The City of Ottawa appealed an arbitration award that found it breached a 2004 Minutes of Settlement with Coliseum Inc. regarding the relocation of Coliseum's dome operations from Frank Clair Stadium.

The arbitrator had awarded Coliseum $2,240,000 in damages.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, finding the arbitrator made extricable errors of law in interpreting the settlement agreement and in applying the doctrines of waiver and promissory estoppel.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the court held the arbitrator's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the facts.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award was set aside.

The applicants sought a stay of orders issued by the respondent municipality under the Building Code Act regarding their heritage buildings, which were in an unsafe condition.

The applicants wanted to demolish the buildings without complying with the heritage permit conditions.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in preserving heritage buildings and ensuring safety.

Parents brought an application alleging that the refusal to provide a door‑to‑door school bus stop for their children attending a French-language Catholic elementary school violated their rights under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They sought an order compelling the school transportation consortium to provide a stop directly in front of their residence.

The court held that the consortium’s transportation decisions were subject to Charter scrutiny because the consortium exercised a governmental function delegated by school boards.

However, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the existing bus stops, located approximately 60 metres and 150 metres from the residence, created a meaningful barrier to access to French-language education.

The court concluded that the inconvenience of walking that distance did not constitute a denial of minority-language education rights under s. 23.

The plaintiffs brought motions to correct errors regarding the identity of defendants and legal representation in a negligence action arising from a residential oil tank installation that allegedly caused a leak.

Due to mistaken assumptions about a business name, the statement of claim was served on a different individual who then retained counsel and filed a defence in the name of another defendant.

The court considered whether to strike the defence, add the correct party, and extend the time for service beyond the ordinary six‑month period.

Applying the principles governing extensions of time and misnomer, the court held that relief should be granted because the plaintiffs intended to sue the installer from the outset and no real prejudice to the affected defendant was demonstrated.

The defence filed without authority was withdrawn, the time for service was extended, and the additional defendant was added.