Landlord and Tenant

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining a declaration that their tenancy was residential, not commercial, thereby establishing the Landlord and Tenant Board's exclusive jurisdiction over the remaining issues.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding that the applicants' offers to settle did not engage Rule 49.10 consequences and the respondent's conduct, while concerning, did not meet the threshold for reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behavior warranting substantial indemnity.

However, the court deemed it appropriate to award the applicants partial costs for the emergency injunction and the preliminary jurisdictional ruling, considering the work done and the modest amount at stake, ultimately awarding $12,000.

The applicant sought an interim injunction under the Commercial Tenancies Act for immediate access to leased premises, to restrain the respondent from re-entry, and to register the lease on title.

The court granted the injunction for re-entry and restraining the respondent, finding the applicant met the test for interlocutory injunctions, including a serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

The respondent's allegations of lease breaches were vague and unsupported.

However, the court declined to permit registration of the lease on title, as the parties had agreed against it in the lease, and the order's intent was to restore the status quo.

The applicant, Eva Oppong, sought substantial indemnity costs following a successful application where her lease was declared valid and continuing.

The respondent, Desaro Holdings Inc., opposed substantial indemnity, arguing for partial indemnity or no costs.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs in the full amount claimed, totaling $21,784.82, finding that while the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity, the applicant should be indemnified for enforcing her legal rights.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a settlement of a commercial lease dispute, which included an injunction and a dispute over additional rent.

The court awarded costs to Calibur Tool and Mold Inc. on a partial indemnity basis for the injunction application, finding it was a necessary step due to the respondents' improper actions in blocking access to the leased premises.

No costs were awarded to either party for the additional rent dispute, as the settlement reflected a mixed success and it was not possible to determine who fared better.

A landlord sought leave to bring an urgent motion for directions to enforce an eviction order against tenants, despite a province-wide moratorium on evictions due to a public health emergency.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously ordered eviction based on a finding that a tenant committed a serious illegal act within the residential complex.

The court, acting as delegate of the Regional Senior Justice, found the matter urgent and granted leave for the landlord to bring the motion for directions, emphasizing the time-sensitive nature and potential interests of vulnerable third parties.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the plaintiffs in a landlord-tenant dispute.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $8,200.00 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for a reduction based on the plaintiffs' pre-motion conduct and their request for post-decision costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from *Boucher*, the court found the plaintiffs' requested costs reasonable, noting comparable billing rates and hours between the parties' counsel.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments for reduction and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $8,200.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The court also confirmed that costs were payable by both corporate and individual defendants.

This endorsement clarifies the administrative nature of scheduling urgent matters before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession provides guidelines for urgent services, not statutory rules, and that the scheduling process is an administrative function.

Submissions on the merits or the issue of urgency are not required or helpful once a matter has been scheduled, as they clog court resources and are not part of the legal dispute between parties.

The court scheduled the applicant's proposed matter for an urgent case conference, dismissing the respondent's subsequent submissions against urgency.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture and return of leased premises.

The respondent landlord requested an adjournment, which was granted by the court.

The adjournment was primarily due to the lack of notice to a third-party tenant in possession and the need for potential further evidence regarding a contentious lease amending agreement.

The court set specific terms for the adjournment, including notification of the third party and a timetable for outstanding materials.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought urgent relief from lease forfeiture by the respondent landlord.

This endorsement scheduled an urgent application hearing and provided comprehensive procedural directions for electronic filing, email service, and remote hearing arrangements, designating a specific justice to preside over the matter.

Angela Beauty Parlour Ltd. (Plaintiff) sued Gurnam and Surjit Multani (Defendants) for breach of a commercial lease, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation related to a beauty salon unit and residential units.

The Defendants counterclaimed for increased rent.

The court found that the Defendants were responsible for the cost of installing a tiled floor ($5,844) and ordered the return of $12,000 paid by the Plaintiff under an unenforceable oral agreement for increased rent.

All other claims by the Plaintiff, including for renovation costs, lost profits, and damages for misrepresentation or breach of quiet enjoyment/parking, were dismissed.

The Defendants' counterclaim for increased rent was also dismissed as the oral agreement was unenforceable.

The defendant landlord moved for security for costs against the plaintiff tenant under Rule 56.01(1)(d) and (e), alleging insufficient assets and a frivolous claim.

The plaintiff argued that its financial difficulties stemmed from the defendant's alleged breach of a lease amending agreement, which involved delayed renovations and illegal distress of chattels.

The court found the defendant met the low threshold for demonstrating insufficient assets but declined to order security for costs, exercising its discretion based on the principle that an order should not prevent a meritorious claim from proceeding, especially when the plaintiff's impecuniosity is allegedly caused by the defendant's actions.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for lack of jurisdiction.

The appeal, concerning rent arrears and eviction, raised only factual matters, not questions of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the appeal devoid of merit, frivolous, vexatious, and an an abuse of process, granting the motion, dismissing the appeal, and lifting the automatic stay of the eviction order.

Mr. Gandhi sued Zev Investments Limited for injuries sustained after slipping on a liquid in his apartment building's stairwell.

Zev brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial existed, as Mr. Gandhi's theories about the hazard were inconsistent and refuted by their evidence.

Mr. Gandhi maintained he slipped on paint or paint oil spilled by Zev's contractor and argued Zev failed to maintain a proper inspection system.

The court dismissed Zev's motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the cause of the fall, Zev's vicarious liability, and the adequacy of its maintenance system, concluding that a summary judgment process would not be proportionate or efficient given the need for extensive witness testimony.

The Tenant (Bryfam Enterprises Inc.) brought an application seeking a declaration that its use of the premises was permitted under the lease.

The Landlord (Harbour Carrick Holdings Inc.) responded with a cross-application for a declaration that the Tenant was in breach of the permitted use clause and for an order terminating the lease.

The court found the Permitted Use Clause unambiguous and that the Tenant's expanded menu items (wraps, salads, soups) were not permitted or ancillary to the principal business of a quick service yogurt, smoothie, and waffle restaurant.

The Tenant's arguments of waiver and proprietary estoppel were rejected due to insufficient evidence of the Landlord's knowledge of the breach.

The lease was ordered terminated effective December 31, 2018.

Strathan Corporation sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action (Second Strathan Action) to include a new claim for breach of statutory duty causing environmental contamination under the Environmental Protection Act.

The defendants opposed, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, untenable at law, and an abuse of process given a prior action (First Strathan Action) already addressing environmental contamination.

The court dismissed Strathan's motion, finding the new claim was a distinct cause of action, statute-barred by the two-year limitation period (as Strathan knew of the environmental claim since 2009 when it commenced the First Strathan Action), and constituted an abuse of process by attempting to graft a duplicative claim onto a separate action.

The court also rejected the argument that the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of beneficial ownership and transfer of title for a property, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment, claiming a written lease and a purchase agreement.

The defendants denied these claims, asserting the documents were fraudulently prepared by the plaintiff and that she was merely a tenant under a verbal agreement.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, concluding that the documents supporting her claims were fraudulently created by her.

Both claims were dismissed.

The applicant, a senior citizens' residence, sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent, a former tenant and son of a current tenant, from attending the property.

The applicant presented evidence of the respondent's belligerent, harassing, and threatening behaviour towards staff and vulnerable senior tenants, including attempts to sell drugs and threats of violence.

The respondent denied the allegations and challenged the court's jurisdiction.

The court found the application properly constituted and, based on the significant evidence of the respondent's intimidating conduct and the building's guest policy, granted the permanent injunction.

The plaintiff, a commercial landlord, moved for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of a lease agreement.

While the breach was undisputed, the live issues concerned damages and the defendants' counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts and the defendants' counterclaim for premises maintenance issues.

The court determined that these issues involved conflicting evidence and credibility assessments that could not be fairly resolved on the motion record alone, necessitating *viva voce* evidence at trial.

This summary trial addressed the plaintiff landlord's claim for damages following the defendant tenant's wrongful repudiation of a commercial lease.

The court determined whether the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate his losses after the tenant vacated the premises early and calculated the damages owed.

The court found that the landlord's mitigation efforts were reasonable given the local market conditions and awarded damages for unpaid rent, the present value of the rent differential with a new tenant, and interest.

The municipality brought a motion seeking appointment as receiver of a property owned by the respondents in order to evict residential tenants and enforce compliance with the Building Code Act after prolonged non‑compliance with court orders.

The respondents had previously been ordered to vacate the building, cease renting residential units, and bring applications before the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate tenancies, but repeatedly failed to comply and continued to collect rent and conduct unauthorized construction.

Evidence showed ongoing building code violations posing health and safety risks to tenants and continued contempt of court orders.

The court found that the respondents had been given numerous opportunities over an extended period to purge their contempt but had failed to bring the property into compliance.

Relying on its jurisdiction under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court appointed the municipality as receiver for the limited purpose of bringing eviction applications and ensuring compliance with safety requirements.