Bernard B. Gasee

The appellant appealed orders granting possession of a property to a company controlled by the respondent and refusing to set aside the possession order.

The appellant had signed an agreement to make monthly payments for occupancy but defaulted, making no payments since October 2007.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had independent legal advice, took the benefit of the agreement without honouring his obligations, and that his claims of duress and procedural irregularities were unfounded.

The tenant appealed the terms of relief from forfeiture granted by the application judge after being found in breach of a commercial lease for permitting loitering and failing to comply with the Liquor License Act.

The landlord cross-appealed, arguing the lease should have been terminated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the application judge crafted a balanced remedy and properly exercised his discretion under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the usage of a full laneway to access the back of her property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if usage could be established, it would merely provide an alternative second way to access the property and did not rise to the level of reasonable necessity for the better enjoyment of the property.

The applicants obtained a judgment against a moving company after their belongings were stolen from a trailer parked on the street.

When the judgment went unsatisfied, they brought an application under s. 132 of the Insurance Act against the moving company's insurers.

The application judge found that the loss fell under the $1 million warehouse insurance limit rather than the $500,000 transportation insurance limit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the primary insurer's appeal in part, holding that the breach was a failure to deliver under the transportation contract, so the $500,000 transportation limit applied.

However, the Court upheld the application judge's finding that the insurer was liable for post-judgment interest and costs exceeding the policy limit.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal held that even if a soil engineering report had been admitted, it did not support the appellants' contamination claims, as there was no evidence regarding when the contaminants were placed, their effect on property value, or the property's potential use.

The Court found no genuine issue for trial on any of the causes of action and dismissed the appeal, awarding the respondent $5,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed an order of a motion judge who proceeded while an appeal on a related matter was outstanding.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge should not have proceeded, but upheld the substantive result because the related appeal had since been dismissed.

The court varied the order to allow the appellant a two-month period to redeem the mortgage and set aside the costs order from the motion.