Caitlin Steven

The plaintiff, Canadian Flight Academy Ltd. (CFA), brought a motion seeking production of documents and answers to refusals from the City of Oshawa in a dispute over a lease extension at the Oshawa Executive Airport.

The motion addressed three main areas: airport noise complaints, land parcel "Part 42" usage, and a proposed land sale.

A significant portion of the ruling focused on the City's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over various emails and "closed reports." The court applied principles of relevance, proportionality, and third-party privacy, and conducted a detailed, document-by-document analysis of privilege claims, granting some production requests while upholding many of the City's privilege assertions.

The appellant sought a 90-day extension of time to perfect its appeal of a summary judgment dismissing its action against the City of Barrie and individual respondents.

A motion judge granted the extension for the City but denied it for the individuals.

On review, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by misapprehending the appeal's potential merit and failing to apply the principle that a party should not be deprived of their right to appeal without real prejudice.

The panel set aside the motion judge's order and granted the extension for the appeal against all respondents.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment awarding damages for the appellants' failure to close a residential real estate transaction.

The appellants challenged the damages amount, arguing failure to mitigate and issues with expert evidence.

The respondent cross-appealed the prejudgment and postjudgment interest rates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding the appellants failed to discharge their onus on mitigation, and the cross-appeal, affirming the motion judge's discretion to depart from the contractual interest rate due to special circumstances (respondent's delay in marketing the property).

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that it validly renewed its commercial lease for a five-year term.

The respondent landlord argued the renewal was invalid because the tenant was in default of its obligations to pay common area maintenance and realty taxes when it gave notice.

The court found that the parties had deviated from the strict payment terms of the lease for years, and the landlord could not retroactively assert a default without providing notice.

Furthermore, the lease contained a tenant-friendly renewal clause that allowed the tenant to cure any default and renew even after the initial deadline had passed.

The court granted the declaration that the lease was validly renewed.

The City of Orillia appealed a lower court's finding that a commercial lease term was ambiguous, arguing the lease expired in 2029, not 2039.

Metro cross-appealed regarding roof repair obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no ambiguity in the lease, concluding it expired in 2029, and upheld the lower court's decision that Metro was responsible for roof repairs under the lease's "maintain and repair" covenant, distinguishing between repair and replacement in the context of the lease terms and property condition.

The plaintiff, Dantonbury Developments Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for damages arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The defendants, self-represented and with limited English, raised several defenses including an alleged bribe, lack of occupancy permit, failure to mitigate by refusing a lower offer, unreasonably low resale price, and false affidavits, as well as a new claim about not knowing a conditional period.

The court dismissed all defenses, finding no triable issue, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for damages totaling $374,967.70 plus prejudgment interest, and substantial indemnity costs of $23,500.

The plaintiff, Tribute (Simcoe Street) Limited, brought a motion for default judgment against defendant Xiao Ping Huang for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a townhouse condominium.

Ms. Huang, who was assigned the APS, failed to take possession on the scheduled occupancy date and subsequently did not file a statement of defence, leading to her being noted in default.

The court found Ms. Huang in breach of the APS and awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $87,678.21, representing the difference between the original purchase price and the resale price, unpaid occupancy fees, and other related costs and interest.

The court also awarded costs on a full indemnity basis as stipulated in the APS but declined to apply the contractual post-judgment interest rate, instead applying the statutory rate, citing a lack of evidence that the clause was brought to Ms. Huang's attention and a significant power imbalance.

The applicant sought a declaration to apply $73,152.50 of an unused leasehold allowance to offset rent owing under a commercial lease.

At the hearing, the respondent consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the declaration on consent and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $24,216.44, noting that the applicant should not have been put to the trouble of preparing the application.

This appeal arose from a successful application terminating two commercial leases for non-payment of rent and awarding arrears and damages for lost future rent.

The appellants challenged the application judge's final and interlocutory orders, alleging procedural irregularities, improper use of self-help remedies, failure to mitigate damages, and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that an application was the appropriate procedure, self-help remedies were properly exercised, and there was no error in the mitigation assessment or evidence of bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant landlord and respondent tenant brought cross-applications regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought a declaration that the lease expired in 2029, while the tenant argued it expired in 2039.

The tenant also sought orders requiring the landlord to replace the roof and parking lot, and an injunction regarding access to a parcel of land.

The court found the lease documents were ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence, concluding the lease expires in 2039.

The court dismissed the tenant's counter-application, finding the landlord was not obligated to replace the roof or parking lot, and an injunction was premature.

Following a successful application to terminate commercial leases and obtain vacant possession, the applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondents engaged in reprehensible conduct, including stonewalling, unnecessary cross-examinations, and threatening applicants' counsel, to avoid their clear legal obligations.

The court awarded the applicants costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the total amount of $80,771.64.

An employee with approximately 30 years of continuous service was dismissed without cause from part-time employment.

The employer relied on a written employment agreement purporting to waive the employee's years of service and common law entitlement to reasonable notice, providing only statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act.

The motion judge found the employee had not waived his years of service for statutory purposes but was bound by a 2006 waiver of common law notice entitlements.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding the waiver was clear and unequivocal, the 2013 transition to part-time employment constituted an amendment rather than a new contract, and there was adequate consideration for the amendments.

The court also rejected the employer's cross-appeal on mitigation, finding the employee had made reasonable efforts to secure comparable employment.

The applicants sought an order terminating two commercial leases for non-payment of rent, requiring vacant possession, granting leave for a writ of possession, and ordering payment of rent arrears and damages for lost future rent.

The respondents brought a motion to stay or dismiss the application, arguing the litigation guardian had limited knowledge and that the matter should proceed as an action.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion, finding the application appropriate and the litigation guardian's involvement proper.

The court granted the applicants all requested relief, concluding that the respondents had no unilateral right to set off alleged damages against rent and had failed to provide evidence of such damages.