4 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Lemay J. dated September 25, 2025.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the respondents.
The court denied relief from forfeiture to a tenant who missed a lease renewal deadline.
A commercial tenancy dispute concerning a restaurant lease that expired on December 12, 2024.
The tenant failed to exercise a contractual renewal option by the required deadline of six months prior to expiry (June 2024).
The tenant sought relief from forfeiture to compel renewal of the lease for another five years.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the tenant made no diligent efforts to comply with the renewal option and failed to provide written notice as required by the lease.
The court held that relief from forfeiture is not available where the loss of the lease is consequential to the tenant's own failure to exercise contractual rights.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the grounds of creed and marital status against a mosque and associated individuals.
The applicant claimed he experienced unpleasant looks and false rumours in the mosque's neighbourhood.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, concluding there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could prove his allegations under the Human Rights Code.
Partition Act sale denied where majority co-owner's attempt to force sale was found oppressive.
The appellant acquired 124 of 147 percentage interests in an apartment building held by tenants in common.
Unable to acquire the remaining interests, the appellant applied under the Partition Act for an order for the sale of the entire building.
The application judge dismissed the application.
On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the appellant had a prima facie right to a sale, its conduct was oppressive.
The appellant sought to force a sale to acquire the entire building for its own profit, undermining the reasonable expectations of the minority co-owners who lived in the building and would suffer significant hardship.
The appeal was dismissed.
