Aweis Osman

The applicant commercial tenant sought a declaration that it had been overcharged for base rent and requested a retroactive rent rebate of at least $450,000.

The tenant argued that the rent charged exceeded market rates and relied on certain lease provisions referencing rentable area and market rents.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the parties had freely negotiated and agreed to the rent increases as the tenant expanded its footprint.

The court held that the lease did not contain a general right to a retroactive rent adjustment based on market rates.

This endorsement addresses three motions: the applicant's motion to strike portions of the respondent's affidavit, the respondent's cross-motion to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit and exhibits, and the applicant's motion to compel answers refused during cross-examination.

The applicant, a former director of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), challenged his disqualification as a board candidate and sought corporate documents related to CIRA's financial affairs, including employee severance packages.

The court dismissed both parties' motions to strike, affirming that preliminary motions to strike on evidentiary grounds are generally inappropriate and admissibility should be left to the application judge.

The applicant's motion to compel answers was allowed in part, compelling answers related to the bona fides of his document request and board briefings on financial settlements, but upholding refusals on questions concerning the merits of whistleblower allegations or legal opinions.

Success was deemed evenly divided, with no order as to costs.

The applicant tenant brought an urgent application to prevent the respondent landlords from terminating a commercial lease or exercising distraint after the tenant unilaterally withheld rent.

The tenant claimed the rent was calculated incorrectly by including the parking lot.

The parties agreed on consent that the tenant would pay all arrears and ongoing rent to keep the lease in good standing pending a hearing on the merits of the rent abatement.

The court fixed costs of the urgent motion at $18,000 payable by the tenant.

The defendants, having succeeded on their motions for summary judgment, sought costs.

The plaintiff, Andrew Walker, argued for no costs or significantly reduced costs due to his impecuniosity and inability to test medical evidence, or for a suspension of the costs decision pending appeal.

The court considered Walker's financial hardship but balanced it against the objectives of cost awards, including indemnification and deterrence.

The court noted that the action was not diligently pursued and that the defendants had offered to dismiss the action without costs prior to the summary judgment motions.

Ultimately, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the Crown defendants and $15,000 to the physician defendants, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given all relevant factors, including access to justice and hardship considerations.

The plaintiff, an inmate, brought an action against the Crown and two physicians alleging negligence and medical malpractice resulting in the amputation of his leg.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff failed to adduce expert medical evidence to support the malpractice claims against the physicians.

The claims against the Crown were dismissed as there was no evidence of the alleged workplace injury, the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Crown was not vicariously liable for the independent contractor physicians.