Bruce C. Robertson

This decision resolves competing applications between a commercial landlord and tenant regarding the use of a basement in a leased property.

The landlord, Danica Schindler, sought to terminate the lease with DFIV Corp. for alleged breaches, including unauthorized use of the basement and installation of equipment.

The tenant countered that use of the basement was an implied term and that the landlord breached the lease by restricting access and failing to provide adequate HVAC.

The court found the lease did not include the basement, the tenant breached the lease by using the basement and installing equipment without consent, and the landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession.

Brar Corp. (Applicant) sought a declaration of an easement over Regina Properties Ltd.'s (Respondent) adjoining property, an order to amend legal descriptions, an injunction, and damages.

Regina Properties Ltd. (Cross-Applicant) sought to vacate a registered notice of interest and an injunction against parking.

The court found that Regina Properties Ltd. had granted a license for access, not an easement, and dismissed Brar Corp.'s application.

The court granted Regina Properties Ltd.'s request to vacate the notice but dismissed its request for an injunction against parking, finding the trespass claim unsuitable for an application.

The applicants sought a determination that their interest in a property had priority over the respondents' interests.

The property owner, Carolyn Lederer, had a first mortgage and a second mortgage with Patricia Bailey.

When the first mortgage defaulted, Bailey, Marchese, and Yung paid it off, adding the amount to the Bailey Mortgage principal as per its standard charge terms.

The applicants, who had a judgment against Lederer from a failed property sale, claimed reliance on a parcel abstract showing only the initial, lower amount of the Bailey Mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the standard charge terms, which allowed for the addition of paid-out encumbrances to the principal, were deemed part of the Bailey Mortgage by statute, and the applicants had deemed notice of these terms.

The court also clarified that parcel abstracts provide notice of existence, not current monetary value, requiring further inquiry.

The applicant sought an order to pass over herself and her sister as named estate trustees due to severe animosity and deadlock, proposing an independent lawyer instead.

The respondent sister brought a cross-application to be appointed as the sole estate trustee.

The court found that the prolonged history of animosity and estrangement between the sisters put the estate at risk.

Both named trustees were passed over, and an independent lawyer was appointed as the estate trustee.

Following an application related to enforcement of contractual obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Courts of Justice Act, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought recovery of their legal costs pursuant to a contractual provision requiring the respondents to pay all enforcement costs, including interest.

The court accepted that such provisions create a prima facie entitlement to costs but emphasized that the ultimate costs award remains discretionary under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents’ request for substantial indemnity costs was rejected.

The court directed that a full bill of costs or dockets be provided before fixing the final costs amount.