Byrdena MacNeil

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 applicants sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to revoke a special event permit for a cultural festival after violent protests erupted on the first day.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it moot since the 2023 festival dates had passed and the 2024 festival proceeded without incident.

The court also noted that the City's decision was substantively reasonable given the immediate risk to public safety, and declined to rule on the jurisdictional and Charter issues.

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.

This property dispute concerned whether the applicants had gained rights over parts of their neighbours’ land used for a shared driveway and a parking and lawn area.

The court rejected the claim for adverse possession of both the driveway strip and the parking and lawn area because the evidence did not show actual possession, an intention to exclude the true owner, or effective exclusion for the required period.

However, the court found that the applicants and their predecessors had openly, continuously, and without permission used the encroaching portion of the driveway since at least 1977, establishing a prescriptive easement for vehicular access.

The court declared the easement, ordered the respondents not to obstruct it, and required removal of items interfering with its use.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming the cancellation of his nomination approval under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program.

The nomination was cancelled because the applicant failed to apply for a work permit within the six-month validity period of his work permit support letter, citing COVID-19 travel restrictions in China and family responsibilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the internal reviewer's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness, no veiled credibility finding, and that adequate reasons were provided.

This addendum corrects a factual error in the reasons for decision released February 5, 2025, regarding the date on which shares were given to the parties.

The court clarifies that the shares were given at Christmas 1996, not Christmas 2019, as previously stated in paragraph 169.

The plaintiff, Damodar Arapakota, brought a motion to cure an administrative error by the court, to note the defendant, Haji Makki, in default, and for leave to bring a motion for default judgment.

The court found that the defendant was in default as of August 14, 2023, but due to an administrative error, the default was not recorded.

The court granted the motion to note the defendant in default but immediately set aside the noting in default, finding that the defendant had an arguable defence, the delay was not unreasonable, and there was no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The matter was ordered to proceed on its merits.

The appellant, an operator of diagnostic imaging clinics, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister's requirement to reimburse over $1.1 million in facility fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by classifying the Ministry's sole witness as a 'litigant's employee with expertise' without giving the appellant prior notice or an opportunity to make submissions and call reply evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The court dismissed Tar Heel Investments Inc.'s claims against H.L. Staebler Company Limited, Lisa Arseneau, and Debbie Sutton regarding the alleged wrongful sale and use of a transportation insurance book of business.

The court found that Arseneau was not merely an employee but entered into a quasi-partnership with PDI, retaining ownership of her book of business.

No binding agreement was reached regarding the TRIP book of business, and Arseneau was constructively dismissed when her employment terms were unilaterally changed.

The court held that neither fiduciary nor confidentiality duties survived the constructive dismissal, and there was no conversion, conspiracy, or breach of contract by the defendants.

The action was dismissed.

The court granted the defendants leave to amend their Amended Statement of Defence, finding that the proposed amendments—alleging an oral agreement regarding a book of business and constructive dismissal—would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the legal test for amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed unless they cause injustice not compensable by costs or adjournment, are not tenable at law, or lack sufficient particulars.

The court found that the delay in seeking the amendments was explained and did not result in actual prejudice to the plaintiff, and that the amendments were based on facts already known to the parties.

The Ken Breau Corporation, a Dairy Queen franchisee, sought a declaration that DQC Canada Inc. breached its statutory obligations of fair dealing and good faith under section 3 of the Arthur Wishart (Franchise Disclosure) Act, 2000, and sought to restrain DQC from awarding a new restaurant to another franchisee within eight kilometres of its territory.

The court found that DQC had not breached its obligations, as the Franchise Agreement clearly defined the applicant’s territory and DQC’s actions were consistent with both the contract and commercial standards.

The application was dismissed.