Arvid Shahmiry

The moving defendants sought an interlocutory or interim injunction restraining a mortgagee from completing a power of sale of a residential property that was also alleged to be a matrimonial home.

They argued the underlying promissory note and mortgage were unconscionable, the spouse had not validly consented to the encumbrance, and the statutory notice requirements under the Mortgages Act were not met.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the court held that most asserted grounds did not raise a serious issue to be tried, found no irreparable harm because any loss was compensable in damages, and concluded the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagee and the third-party purchaser.

The motion was dismissed and the sale was permitted to proceed.

The applicant sought to terminate a commercial lease for a mixed-use property (convenience store with an apartment above) due to alleged defaults by the respondents, including unpaid rent, property taxes, lack of insurance, unauthorized room rentals, and failure to make repairs.

The respondents disputed the defaults and argued the residential portion was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court declared the entire property exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, under a single commercial lease, and found the respondents in default on rent, insurance, and room rentals.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act, imposing conditions for the respondents to cure the defaults by specific dates.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the plaintiff, Environmental Building Solutions Corporation, successfully obtained leave to amend its statement of claim in a construction lien action.

The defendants had opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court found the plaintiff's motion was brought within the limitation period and granted leave to amend.

Consequently, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, finding the hourly rate claimed by counsel reasonable after adjusting for inflation and the time spent proportionate to the issues.

The defendants, 2420124 Ontario Limited and 2420125 Ontario Limited, were ordered to pay $14,415.96 in costs, including fees, HST, and disbursements.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding the individual appellant personally liable for a breach of contract regarding kitchen cabinetry work.

The trial judge had found that the contract was with the corporate appellant, but held the individual appellant personally liable because the corporate name was misspelled on the contract and the individual had claimed for the balance of the contract in his own name in a cross-claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by piercing the corporate veil without evidence of fraudulent or improper conduct, and by drawing an improper inference from the pleadings that contradicted his own factual findings.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion and cross-motion in a dispute concerning the sale of properties under the Partition Act.

The parties, estate trustees and a brother of the deceased, had failed to cooperate in the sale process, necessitating further court intervention to revise the sale protocol.

Both sides sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court determined that success on the motion and cross-motion was divided, and neither party deserved a costs award due to their persistent failure to cooperate in resolving the family dispute.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs, requiring each side to bear their own expenses.

The applicants, estate trustees of Frank Mammone, brought a motion to vary a previous court order for the sale of two properties under the Partition Act, due to the respondents' persistent non-cooperation.

The respondents, Emilio Mammone and Density Garden Enterprises Inc., brought a cross-motion seeking to purchase the estate's interest in the properties.

The court found that the original order was not working and required revision.

It granted the applicants' motion, modifying the sale process to give them unilateral control over retaining a real estate agent and listing the properties, with any offer acceptance subject to court approval.

The respondents' cross-motion was implicitly dismissed.