Bernard B. Gasee

The applicant condominium corporation sought approval of an administrator's reports, extension of his term, recovery of additional expenses incurred due to respondents' non-compliance with a prior order, and costs for two motions.

The court approved the administrator's extension and reports, ordered the non-compliant respondents to bear the additional expenses of $62,543.55, and awarded costs to the applicant on a full indemnity basis for the urgent motion ($25,809.20) and partial indemnity for the June motion ($2,750.00), all payable pro-rata by the non-compliant unit owners.

The court also allowed the applicant to use the lien mechanism under the Condominium Act for recovery.

A condominium corporation brought an urgent motion to enforce compliance with a prior consent order regarding the restoration of common element attic spaces.

The respondents, unit owners, resisted the removal of attic hatch ladders, arguing they were outside the scope of the order.

The court clarified that the removal of these ladders was essential for structural integrity and municipal compliance, as they compromised the roof trusses.

The court mandated compliance with the original order, confirming the scope included ladder removal, and granted the corporation the right to use security and locksmiths for access.

While declining to make a contempt finding immediately, the court reserved the right to reconsider it.

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The appellant tenant sought leave to appeal and to set aside an arbitration award that determined the fair market base rent for a commercial lease renewal.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to set aside the award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, as the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction and the process was fair.

Furthermore, the court denied leave to appeal under section 45(1) because the appellant's grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, primarily concerning contractual interpretation and factual findings, rather than extricable questions of law.

Following a judgment granting the applicant's application and dismissing the respondent's cross-application, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs generally, but the applicant's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $60,000, representing partial indemnity costs until the date of the offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The applicant mortgagor paid the principal and all interest payable under a commercial mortgage two weeks before the maturity date.

The respondent mortgagee demanded a prepayment charge of one month's interest, which the mortgagor paid under protest to obtain a discharge.

The mortgagor applied for a declaration that the charge was improper and for repayment.

The mortgagee cross-applied, arguing it was entitled to three months' interest and that the parties had reached a settlement.

The court found no settlement was reached and held that the prepayment clause was not triggered because the mortgagor paid all interest due up to the maturity date.

The court ordered the mortgagee to repay the improperly charged fees.

Following reasons for judgment in two related applications regarding a commercial lease, the successful parties, The Tire Pit Inc. and Michael Goldlist, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the conduct of the unsuccessful parties did not rise to the egregious level required for substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, ordering Augend and Charles Bulmer jointly and severally to pay $36,000 to The Tire Pit Inc., and Augend to pay $31,000 to Michael Goldlist.

Augend, the new owner of a commercial property, brought an application seeking a declaration that the lease with the tenant, Tire Pit, had expired and seeking vacant possession.

Tire Pit brought a companion application seeking a declaration that it had validly exercised its option to extend the lease for another five years.

The court found that Tire Pit had personally delivered written notice of its intention to extend the lease to the former landlord at his home, more than six months before the lease expired.

Although the lease prescribed notice by registered mail or courier, the court applied the principle that actual notice by a no less advantageous method is valid where the lease does not strictly exclude other methods.

The court declared the lease validly extended and dismissed Augend's application.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant owner for unpaid common element maintenance fees, interest, and additional claimed expenses.

The parties settled the principal amount of the arrears.

The court enforced the condominium by-law's contractual interest rate of 30% above prime, finding no reason to grant relief from it.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for additional collection expenses, finding they were not authorized by the by-laws and were subsumed by the high interest rate.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of $30,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused and taken under advisement during examinations for discovery of two individual defendants, Alan G. Fickett and Aaron T. Morrison, and their associated corporate entities, Ecolight LED Systems, LLC and Ecolight International, LLC.

The underlying action alleged misrepresentation, unpaid loans, and diversion of inventory by a co-defendant through a scheme involving the Ecolight companies.

The court assessed the relevance of each refused question based on the pleadings and the scope of discovery, compelling answers for some questions related to inventory suppliers, financing, and bank statements, while refusing others concerning corporate records and marketing plans.

This case involved a dispute over a commercial condominium Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Purchaser failed to close on the fixed date, requesting extensions which the Vendor refused.

The Purchaser sued for specific performance and relief from forfeiture, moving for a certificate of pending litigation.

The Vendor sued for a declaration that the agreement was terminated and forfeiture of deposits, moving for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the Purchaser's action and motion, granting the Vendor's summary judgment.

It held that the duty of good faith in a discreet real estate transaction does not override strict contractual terms regarding closing dates.

The court ordered forfeiture of the $40,000 in deposits but ordered the return of $31,999.50 paid on account of interim closing funds, distinguishing between true deposits and payments on account.

The plaintiffs were entirely successful at trial in an action regarding the ownership of a valuable piece of real estate.

They sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,895.40, plus an additional $1,500 for attendances to settle the judgment.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded because the litigation was caused by the plaintiffs' failure to document their intentions clearly, or alternatively, that the costs sought were excessive.

The court rejected the defendant's argument for no costs and awarded the plaintiffs $37,500, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the scope of the engagement, the length of the trial, and the complexity of the issues.

Following judgment in a civil action, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff argued entitlement to enhanced costs on the basis that he had beaten his offer to settle, while the defendant disputed that claim and argued the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The court accepted that the plaintiff had not beaten the offer to settle and found that the proceeding should properly have been brought in Small Claims Court, justifying the exercise of discretion under Rule 57.05 to decline awarding costs to the plaintiff.

However, the court also declined to award costs to the defendant due to misconduct by its agent.

As a result, no costs were awarded to either party.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of funds withdrawn from his bank account for an alleged car loan arranged through a dealership acting as the bank’s agent.

The bank asserted that a valid loan agreement existed and relied on signed loan documentation and the plaintiff’s payment history.

The court held that the bank failed to establish that acceptance of the loan application was communicated to the borrower, a required element for contract formation.

Because the bank did not prove that a binding loan agreement existed, it had no legal right to withdraw the funds.

Summary judgment was granted requiring repayment of the withdrawn amount with interest, while additional damage claims were dismissed for lack of evidence.

A self‑represented party brought a motion opposing confirmation of interim and final reports prepared by a court‑appointed receiver in a partnership dissolution proceeding and sought leave to commence legal proceedings against the receiver and its president.

The court found the moving party had possessed copies of the receiver’s reports for at least five years before bringing the motion.

Any potential claim against the receiver was therefore barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also held that the equitable doctrine of laches applied given the extensive delay and prejudice to the respondents.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

A lawyer sought assessment of a legal account rendered to another lawyer for services in prior litigation.

The client moved to set aside the registrar’s order granting assessment on requisition, arguing the bill was deficient, the retainer terms were disputed, and the limitation period had expired.

The court held that the account lacked a reasonable description of services, was rendered beyond the applicable limitation period, and that the requisition for assessment had been obtained without disclosure that the retainer terms were disputed.

The court further found the bill inconsistent with the original oral contingency arrangement under which fees were payable only if costs were recovered.

The assessment order was set aside and the scheduled assessment vacated.

A real estate brokerage sought commission after the seller refused to complete a residential sale despite entering an agreement of purchase and sale.

The seller argued the brokerage was not entitled to commission because its agent failed to disclose an existing buyer agency relationship with the purchasers before presenting the offer, contrary to the listing agreement and fiduciary duties.

The court held that the agent failed to make the required written disclosure of the dual agency relationship prior to presenting the offer.

This non‑disclosure constituted a material breach of the listing agreement and the agent’s fiduciary obligations.

As a result, the brokerage was disentitled from recovering commission under the agreement.

The appellant purchased multiple condominium units from a developer in 2008, and a transfer for one specific unit was registered in its name.

However, the respondent had previously purchased and occupied that same unit since 1987, but due to a registration error, it was omitted from the respondent's 1994 conveyance.

The application judge granted title rectification in favour of the respondent, finding the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because there was no agreement or consideration for the specific unit in the 2008 sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that the statutory protection of indefeasibility of title under the Land Titles Act only applies to bona fide purchasers.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order declaring a solicitor-client relationship and remitting the matter to an assessment officer.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction under sections 19(1)(a) and 19(1.1) of the Courts of Justice Act is limited to appeals from monetary awards.

As the judgment appealed from was not a monetary award, the court lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant purchased several commercial condominium units in 1987, but due to a lawyer's inadvertence, one unit was omitted from the 1994 registered transfer.

The applicant occupied the unit for 17 years unaware of the error.

In 2008, the original developer sold its remaining units to the respondent in a bulk sale, and the omitted unit was inadvertently transferred to the respondent.

The applicant sought rectification of the land titles register.

The court found that the respondent was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the specific unit, as there was no meeting of the minds, no agreement, and no consideration for its transfer.

The court ordered the register rectified to reflect the applicant as the owner.