Brian Chung

The respondents in an application for a permanent injunction regarding zoning by-law compliance brought a motion to compel the applicant municipality to answer undertakings and refusals from a cross-examination.

The court found that all requested items had either been satisfied by the municipality or were protected by litigation privilege, specifically a planning memorandum and notes on inspection photographs prepared for counsel.

The motion was dismissed, though the court ordered a brief supplementary affidavit to confirm the timing and purpose of the photograph notes.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

The plaintiffs moved for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a 108-acre parcel of land.

The plaintiff had agreed to purchase five acres of the land from one of the co-owners for $750,000 and advanced $640,000 before the defendant purported to terminate the agreement.

The defendant argued the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and the Planning Act.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land and held that the equities favoured granting the CPL, as the property was unique and the plaintiffs had advanced 85% of the purchase price.

The tenant and landlord brought cross-applications regarding a commercial lease dispute arising during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties had agreed to a temporary rent reduction during the lockdown, but disputed its duration and whether the landlord was obligated to apply for the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program.

The court found the rent relief agreement validly terminated in August 2020 and that the landlord made no binding promise to apply for CECRA.

However, applying the doctrine of spent breach, the court held the tenant could still exercise its lease renewal option provided arrears were paid.

Claims regarding maintenance breaches were directed to trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' proposed class action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $68,369.13 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs or a reduced amount, citing the novelty of the issue and the defendant's reliance on an exculpatory clause.

The court rejected the 'no costs' argument but reduced the award to $52,500, noting the novelty of the issues and the defendant's opposition to a pleadings amendment.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal of an arbitral award regarding post-closing adjustments under a Share Purchase Agreement.

The respondent argued that the Joint Submission to Arbitrate governed the proceedings and did not provide a right of appeal, meaning leave was required under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The appellants argued the original Share Purchase Agreement allowed appeals for 'manifest error'.

The court found that the Joint Submission to Arbitrate replaced the original agreement and governed the arbitration.

As it did not provide a right of appeal, and no leave was sought, the motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike out the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and lacked sufficient detail.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged breach of contract, oppression, breach of good faith, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from a joint venture departure agreement and an alleged sham termination of a management contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims were pleaded with sufficient particularity and it was not plain and obvious that they would fail.

The applicant sought appointment of an arbitrator to determine post‑closing purchase price adjustments under a share purchase agreement after the respondents refused to engage the designated accounting firm arbitrator and raised allegations of bias based on the accounting firms having previously retained the applicant’s law firm in unrelated matters.

The court reviewed the legal test for reasonable apprehension of bias applicable to arbitrators and held that the mere fact that an accounting firm had retained counsel for one party in unrelated insolvency matters does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found the respondents’ allegations meritless and concluded their conduct had derailed the agreed arbitration process.

Although a former judge was ultimately appointed as arbitrator on consent, the court determined the applicant had lost its contractual right to the designated arbitrator due to the respondents’ unjustified conduct.

Significant costs were ordered against the respondents for acting in bad faith and breaching earlier court orders.