C. Chang

The applicant tenant brought an application for declaratory relief regarding the exercise of an option to renew a commercial lease.

The respondent landlord argued the exercise was vitiated because the tenant was in material default of the lease, citing issues with insurance coverage, parking lot maintenance, waste, and contamination.

The landlord also argued a new lease agreement was required.

The court found the tenant was not in material default, noting the landlord's complaints were raised disingenuously during rent negotiations.

The court also held the lease did not require a new agreement for renewal.

The application was granted, and the tenant was awarded costs.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a Chinese arbitral award against the respondent for unpaid automotive parts.

The respondent opposed, arguing it was denied the opportunity to present its case when the arbitral tribunal refused its request to retain appraisers, and that enforcement would violate public policy.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding the tribunal's procedural decisions did not offend basic notions of justice and the public policy exception was not met.

The court also struck out portions of the respondent's affidavit evidence as inadmissible hearsay and strongly reprimanded the applicant's counsel for uncivil courtroom behaviour.

The moving parties filed a supplementary motion record and revised draft order following a previous endorsement that noted deficiencies in their materials.

The court found the new materials remained deficient, citing incomplete documents, missing schedules, duplicate email authorizations, and spelling errors.

The court declined to grant the requested relief but provided the moving parties one final opportunity to file a proper and complete consent and draft order.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it validly exercised its option to purchase two commercial properties from the respondent landlord.

The landlord argued the tenant had exercised the option earlier via an email and subsequently forfeited it by failing to close.

The court found the tenant clearly and unequivocally exercised the option on January 21, 2023, in strict conformity with the lease terms, and was entitled to purchase the properties.

The court also noted it would have granted relief from forfeiture if necessary.

Costs of $35,000 were awarded to the tenant.

The Crown brought applications under the Criminal Code for testimonial aids for two witnesses in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown sought an order for a child complainant to testify with her biological father as a support person, and for another witness to testify with a Victim/Witness Assistance Worker and by CCTV.

The defence opposed the choice of the biological father and opposed the aids for the adult witness.

The court granted all applications, finding that the biological father would not interfere with the administration of justice, and that the aids for the adult witness would facilitate a full and candid account given the nature of the offences and her past relationship with the accused.

The parties brought competing motions regarding relocation, primary residence, parenting time, and school enrolment.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the children from Oakville to Brampton, primary residence, and to change the children's schools.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought equal parenting time and for the children to remain in their current schools.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for relocation, finding she failed to meet the burden of proof under s. 16.93(1) of the Divorce Act and that the move was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered equal parenting time on a week-about basis and directed that the children remain enrolled in their Oakville schools.

The applicant sought to enforce an arbitral award requiring the respondent to sell shares to the applicant.

A third-party judgment creditor of the respondent opposed the application, arguing her writ of seizure and sale gave her a prior interest in the shares.

The court held that under section 50(3) of the Arbitration Act, enforcement is mandatory unless specific exceptions apply.

Furthermore, applying equitable principles, the respondent had no remaining interest in the shares to which the writ could attach once the applicant's contractual right to acquire them arose.

The arbitral award was enforced.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming 100% beneficial ownership of a family property that had been transferred multiple times among family members and ultimately sold to a third-party corporation.

The plaintiff sought to set aside the sale as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found that the plaintiff and his father were equal 50% beneficial owners of the property.

The court declined to set aside the sale, finding the third-party corporation was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The court ordered the plaintiff's parents to pay him 50% of the net sale proceeds under a constructive trust.

All counterclaims were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for negligence and misfeasance in public office against the police defendants for failing to recover property allegedly stolen by a family member.

The court found that the police did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs, as they were not suspects or a narrow group of potential victims of a specific threat.

Furthermore, there was no evidence of bad faith or unlawful conduct to support a claim of misfeasance in public office.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant tenant brought an application for declaratory relief to interpret the term 'Rentable Area of the Premises' in a commercial lease.

The tenant argued the area was 2,035 square feet, restricted to its specific unit, while the respondent landlord argued it was 2,314 square feet, which included the tenant's share of common areas.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the court read the lease as a whole and found that the landlord had the express right to measure the area and include the tenant's share of common areas.

The court determined the rentable area to be 2,314 square feet and dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding waiver and unconscionability.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale, relying on an arbitration clause in the Tarion Addendum.

The court found that while the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by attorning to the court's jurisdiction and actively participating in the litigation for over 16 months before bringing the motion.

The motion to stay was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking indemnification under a commercial insurance policy for cellphone stock allegedly damaged by a toilet backup.

The parties had previously engaged in an appraisal process which left a category of 'disputed phones' unresolved due to sample testing.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the defendant's request for a 'boomerang' summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial because there was no evidence regarding the existence or absence of damage to the disputed phones.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendants for allegedly breaching a court order that prohibited encumbering a specific property in excess of $309,000.

The defendant Lauri Partanen admitted to being in contempt and was given an opportunity to purge his contempt by paying $216,000 into court.

The motion for contempt against the defendants Eric and Janet Partanen was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they intentionally breached the order, and Janet was not a party to the proceeding when the order was made.

The penalty phase for Lauri and the issue of costs were adjourned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add the statutory third party insurer as a defendant and to seek declaratory relief regarding coverage.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing it would cause prejudice, was untenable in law, and constituted an abuse of process that would eviscerate an insurer's statutory right to defend claims.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no non-compensable prejudice, that the declaratory relief sought had practical utility, and that the proposed amendments did not constitute an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs.