Arlene Campbell

The court determined that the applicants were not entitled to extend their subleasehold interest in commercial premises for a further five years because they had committed at least three defaults, constituting "habitual default" under the sublease.

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the conditions for extension, including defaults related to unauthorized physiotherapy services, late rent payments, fire code deficiencies, and nonpayment of rent during COVID-19 closures.

The court also held that the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture did not apply, as the applicants' defaults were not due to circumstances beyond their control.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The court considered whether the assessment of costs following settlement should be conducted by an assessment officer or by a judge.

The plaintiffs sought to have the court fix costs, while the defendants argued for assessment by an assessment officer under Rule 57.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, as the matter settled before trial and the court had only a cursory knowledge of the facts, the assessment should be conducted by an assessment officer as contemplated by the Rules.

The court encouraged the parties to attempt to resolve costs without assessment if possible.

The moving party creditor brought a motion to annul the consumer debtor's consumer proposal.

The creditor had failed to file a proof of claim within the statutory time periods, resulting in the proposal being deemed accepted and approved.

The creditor also commenced actions against the debtor and the administrator without obtaining leave of the court, breaching the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

However, the debtor was ineligible to file a consumer proposal because her aggregate debts, including the creditor's judgment, exceeded the $250,000 statutory limit.

Balancing the factors, including the debtor's ineligibility and the massive disparity between the proven claims and the creditor's claim, the court exercised its discretion to annul the consumer proposal, despite the creditor's misconduct.