Byrdena MacNeil

The defendant property owner moved under the Construction Act to vacate and discharge a construction lien and certificate of action registered by a subcontractor against the subject property.

The subcontractor had performed window installation work on a condominium project and claimed its last supply date was March 14, 2025, when a worker attended the property to replace a glass pane broken during insulation removal by another party.

The court found that the subcontractor's substantive work had been completed before February 2025, that the March 2025 attendance was minor remedial repair work that did not constitute a lienable supply extending the preservation period, and that the lien was therefore registered outside the mandatory 60-day window.

The motion was granted and the lien and certificate of action were discharged and vacated, with costs of $4,000 awarded to the moving party.

The defendants' counsel notified the court that paragraph 6 of the Reasons for Decision released on October 24, 2025 incorrectly stated that two costs orders made against the plaintiff remained unpaid.

The court issued an erratum replacing paragraph 6 with corrected language detailing two costs orders totalling $12,200 against the plaintiff arising from an unsuccessful appeal and a successful defence motion for leave to amend.

Estate trustees brought an application seeking leave to issue a writ of possession of a property forming part of the deceased’s estate, vacant possession, occupation rent, and damages against the surviving spouse who remained in the home.

The respondent asserted that the property was a matrimonial home and that he had a beneficial interest and possessory rights.

The court held that a writ of possession cannot issue without a prior order granting exclusive possession.

Because the parties were still spouses at the time of death and the property may constitute a matrimonial home, issues of title and possession must be determined under the Family Law Act before such remedies can be granted.

The court therefore dismissed the application, including the claims for occupation rent, damages, and vacant possession.

In a civil costs decision following settlement of the main action, one defendant sought partial indemnity costs against the co-defendant for both the action and a crossclaim.

The court treated the hearing as a motion for costs and applied the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the responding defendant's litigation position and delayed acceptance of the offer to settle caused unnecessary continuation of the proceeding and additional preparation costs.

While not granting the full amount requested, the court awarded an all-inclusive costs amount reflecting proportionality and the parties' relative success.

Costs decision following the landlord's successful motion to stay the tenant's application for injunctive relief and relief from forfeiture pending arbitration.

The landlord sought partial indemnity costs of $20,183.47.

The tenant argued the costs were excessive, disproportionate, and should be reserved to the arbitrator.

The court declined to reserve costs, finding it controls costs of proceedings before it and the arbitration clause might not empower the arbitrator to award such costs.

The court reduced the hours claimed due to duplicative work by three lawyers and disallowed the articling student's attendance costs, awarding $13,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the successful summary dismissal of a counterclaim brought against a real estate brokerage, the court determined costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The brokerage had sought substantial indemnity costs of $21,089.91, arguing the counterclaim alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence with potential reputational harm.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,357.41 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case, the court addressed three post-trial issues: (1) whether Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments received by the plaintiff should be deducted from the past income loss award; (2) the amount of partial indemnity costs payable; and (3) the amount of assessable disbursements.

The court held that CERB payments were not deductible as they were not paid "in respect of the incident" under the Insurance Act, and the plaintiff faced potential repayment obligations.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $327,700.00 (inclusive of HST) and allowed all claimed disbursements of $167,894.62, including expert meeting costs and home modification reports.

A self-represented plaintiff sought to set aside a settlement agreement dated March 14, 2024, whereby the defendants agreed to pay $100,000 to settle her wrongful dismissal and tort claims.

The plaintiff argued the settlement should be rescinded on grounds of lack of legal counsel, coercion, fraud and misrepresentation, breach by the defendants, and discretionary grounds.

The court found the settlement was valid and binding, that the plaintiff had adequate opportunity to seek legal advice, that no duress or illegitimate pressure was exerted, that alleged misrepresentations were not material or relied upon, and that any alleged breaches were de minimis.

The court also found the plaintiff's motion was brought with unreasonable delay.

The motion was dismissed.

A commercial tenant operating a bar and nightclub sought an urgent application for an interim and permanent injunction to prevent termination of its tenancy and to obtain relief from forfeiture.

The landlord moved to stay the application, arguing that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration.

The court found that the dispute fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the lease and granted the landlord's motion to stay the application.

The court declined to grant interim injunctive relief or relief from forfeiture, finding that the alleged breaches—permitting armed individuals to enter the premises leading to a shooting incident and operating an unlicensed adult entertainment facility—were very serious in nature and that the landlord's interests could not be fully vindicated without resort to forfeiture.

A motion by a real estate brokerage to dismiss and strike a counterclaim brought against it by a self-represented defendant.

The defendant alleged that the brokerage was vicariously liable for the conduct of one of its agents in a private real estate transaction.

The court found that the agent had cancelled the listing agreements and thereafter conducted the sale and lease transactions in her personal capacity, without the brokerage's involvement or knowledge.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the counterclaim on the basis that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.

The defendants agreed to purchase the property for $1,600,000 with an August 15, 2022 closing date but failed to close because the sale of their own home did not complete.

The plaintiffs subsequently resold the property to third parties for $1,325,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the agreement was unconditional, the defendants breached by failing to close, and the plaintiffs took reasonable mitigation steps.

The court awarded damages of $169,376.51 after deducting the forfeited deposit and saved commissions.

The applicants sought to enforce a written settlement agreement reached with the respondents regarding their exclusion from a convenience store and gas station business known as Wright's Variety.

The applicants alleged they were beneficial owners and shareholders of the corporation based on a verbal agreement and subsequent written settlement agreement.

The respondents denied the validity of the settlement agreement, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, lack of meeting of the minds, unmet conditions, duress, and undue influence.

The court found serious factual disputes incapable of resolution on documentary evidence alone and declined to grant judgment on the settlement agreement.

The court also declined to grant an interlocutory injunction, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

This is a costs decision following an application for property rights over portions of the respondents' property.

The applicants sought either ownership by adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a driveway area and a gravel parking and lawn area.

The applicants were substantially successful, obtaining an easement of vehicular ingress and egress over the driveway area and an order requiring the respondents to remove obstructing items.

However, the applicants' claim for adverse possession of the parking and lawn area was dismissed.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants in the amount of $36,000.00, all inclusive, finding that while the respondents' conduct was un-neighbourly and antagonistic, it did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful application for an order requiring the respondent to comply with its obligation under a commercial lease to provide audited statements and finding the respondent estopped from claiming rent prior to January 1, 2021.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant, applying Rule 49.10 costs consequences based on an unaccepted settlement offer.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's partial abandonment of certain relief claims warranted a reduction in costs, finding that the abandoned claims were no longer necessary once the respondent produced the required documents.

The defendants/moving parties brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings and certain refusals given at his examination for discovery.

The defendants were substantially successful on the motion, obtaining compliance on five of eleven requests and having relief denied on three requests.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants in the amount of $4,302.13, payable within 30 days.

The court considered the defendants' substantial success, the reasonableness of the legal fees and rates, and the proportionality of the award in fixing costs.

This decision resolves a dispute over the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of the Boundary Lake Property, an asset of Maple Pond Farm Limited.

The plaintiff, Gordon Vellenga, sought equal division of the proceeds between himself and Peter Boersma, the two shareholders.

The defendants, including Weijs Investment Corp., sought priority reimbursement for various claims before any distribution.

The court found most of the defendants’ claims barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, or limitations, except for property taxes paid on the property.

The court ordered equal division of the proceeds, with a credit to Weijs Investment for property taxes paid.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following a trial regarding the estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance.

The court considered submissions from both parties, each seeking costs on different bases, but ultimately determined that no costs should be awarded to any party due to the divided success at trial and the nature of the family estate dispute.

Each party is to bear their own costs.

The court considered whether the respondent landlord was required to provide audited statements of Additional Rent under a commercial lease, and whether the landlord was estopped from claiming rent for a period prior to January 1, 2021.

The court found that the lease unambiguously required audited statements, meaning statements verified by an independent accountant, and that the respondent had not fulfilled this obligation.

The court also found that the landlord was estopped from claiming rent for the period prior to January 1, 2021, due to a course of conduct and representations made to the applicant tenant, and ordered the landlord to provide audited statements and reimburse any overpayments.

The court considered whether the removal of an underground storage tank by the plaintiff, Fleetway Fuels Inc., was a “voluntary removal” under Endorsement No. 10 of an insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

The court found that the removal was voluntary, as it was undertaken as a result of a contractual obligation in a commercial lease, not due to compulsion by law or governmental order.

The exclusion in the policy therefore applied, and the insurer was not required to indemnify the plaintiff for environmental cleanup costs discovered during the removal.