C. Davis

Following a judgment in favour of the landlord regarding the termination of a commercial lease upon a request to assign, the landlord sought costs of $15,098.45 on a substantial indemnity basis or $9,928.16 on a partial indemnity basis.

The tenant argued that the case involved a novel issue with no prior Ontario case law and suggested costs be limited to $5,000.

The court found that while the landlord was successful and entitled to costs, the tenant had a good argument on a novel issue.

The court fixed costs at $5,000, noting the tenant's failure to file its own bill of costs diminished its argument on reasonable expectations.

The tenant applied for a declaration requiring the landlord to permit assignment of a commercial lease in connection with the sale of a restaurant business.

The lease required landlord consent to assignment, prohibited unreasonable withholding of consent, but also allowed the landlord to terminate the lease if assignment was requested, subject to the tenant's right to withdraw the request and reinstate the lease.

Applying contractual interpretation principles and adopting the reasoning in an Alberta decision addressing analogous lease language, the court held the termination right was an additional contractual option that did not conflict with the consent provision.

The application was dismissed.

In a medical negligence appeal arising from the death of a pregnant hospital patient after rupture of an ascending aortic aneurysm, the court split on whether the trial judge could find the obstetrical Most Responsible Physician liable while absolving the consulting respirologist.

The majority held that the hospital's MRP policy imposed an independent duty to exercise critical judgment, coordinate care, obtain appropriate consultations, and formulate an overall plan of care, and that the obstetrician breached that duty by failing to arrange immediate cardiac assessment and transfer to a tertiary care centre.

The dissent concluded the findings against the obstetrician were irreconcilable with the unchallenged finding that the respirologist's treatment plan met the standard of care, and would have set aside liability.

The majority also upheld causation and dismissed the costs appeal.

The applicant sought an order under s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act to vest an easement benefiting the respondents’ property so that a right-of-way could be registered in connection with a municipal site plan agreement and development project.

The respondents refused to execute the authorization required under the Land Titles Act to register the easement.

The court held that s. 100 does not confer standalone jurisdiction to vest property interests and can only be used where the applicant has an independent legal entitlement to the property interest.

Because the applicant had no claim to ownership or possession of the respondents’ lands and was effectively attempting to impose a benefit on an unwilling landowner, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the order.

The application was dismissed with costs.