Bernard Gasee

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 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.

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.

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.