Bradley Philips

The parties brought a statutory appeal and cross-appeal from an arbitrator's award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to address whether leave to appeal was required as a preliminary issue.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Arbitration Act applied because the Tarion Addendum constituted an arbitration agreement that did not specify appeal rights.

Consequently, leave to appeal was required and the appeal was strictly limited to questions of law.

The parties brought a statutory appeal and cross-appeal from an arbitrator's award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding a new build home purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to address whether leave to appeal was required as a preliminary issue.

The court held that while it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act applies because the Tarion Addendum constitutes an arbitration agreement that is silent on appeal rights.

Consequently, leave to appeal is required and the appeal is strictly limited to questions of law.

The appellant appealed an arbitration and cost award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court raised preliminary questions regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether leave to appeal was required under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court adjourned the hearing and directed the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional issues.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from an arbitration award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act arising from the breakdown of a purchase agreement for a new build home.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court panel directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the Arbitration Act, 1991 requires leave to appeal or limits the appeal to issues of law.

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that her mother's 2016 will was invalid.

Only one respondent filed a notice of appearance.

The applicant and two former solicitors of the deceased submitted a consent Order for Directions that would convert the application into an action and mandate extensive discovery.

The court declined to sign the draft order, noting that the failure of the other respondents to file notices of appearance effectively rendered the application uncontested.

The court required further evidence or submissions to justify complicating the proceeding and consuming scarce judicial resources when a streamlined, uncontested procedure was available.

Following the dismissal of a landlord’s motion for security for costs and a motion to strike affidavit paragraphs, and the granting of the tenants’ motion to convert an application to an action, the successful tenants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the effect of settlement offers that effectively waived costs if accepted.

The court found the tenants had achieved full success and that their claimed hours and hourly rate were reasonable given the complexity and importance of the motions.

Applying the principle of reasonableness articulated in appellate authority, the court rejected the landlord’s proposed reduced costs figure.

Substantial indemnity costs of $8,800 were awarded.

A commercial landlord brought a motion for security for costs and to strike portions of affidavits filed by the tenant and subtenant in an application seeking consent to change the restaurant’s operating name under a lease agreement.

The tenants opposed the motion and brought a cross‑motion seeking to convert a related landlord application into an action due to disputed facts.

The court held that the tenants’ application had merit and that there was no basis for security for costs, noting the tenants had substantial assets and the matter was not frivolous.

The court also declined to strike the impugned affidavit evidence and held that communications between the parties should be disclosed.

Because the landlord’s related application involved numerous contested factual issues requiring viva voce evidence, it was converted into an action.