Christel Higgs

Metrolinx sought substantial indemnity costs against 1604945 Ontario Inc. following motions heard in February 2021.

Metrolinx alleged reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff's solicitor, including abusive remarks, failure to provide relevant law, and vexatious actions that unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The plaintiff argued costs should be left to the trial judge and denied reprehensible conduct.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, particularly towards Metrolinx's female counsel, unprofessional and awarded Metrolinx substantial indemnity costs of $47,270.75, reduced by $5,000 for Metrolinx's non-compliance with page limits for submissions.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a previous judgment regarding the specific lands subject to an easement dispute, and moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant regarding its construction plans.

The defendant requested production of the plaintiff's full commercial leases.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further documents, finding the defendant's construction plans irrelevant to whether the plaintiff has an easement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce its full leases and clarified the geographic boundaries of the subject lands.

The plaintiff, 1604945 Ontario Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from interfering with its use of a "laneway" on Metrolinx's property, over which the plaintiff claimed a prescriptive easement.

Metrolinx, a Crown Agency, intended to use the land for major public transit infrastructure projects.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the prescriptive easement claim, no irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored Metrolinx due to the public benefit and significant costs associated with delaying the infrastructure projects.

The court emphasized that federal railway legislation prevented the acquisition of prescriptive easements over federal railway lands and that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of continuous, uninterrupted use or a proper legal description of the claimed easement.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for unpaid shipping and handling fees.

The corporate defendant failed to provide a valid explanation for its default and did not raise an arguable defence, so the motion was dismissed as against it.

However, the personal defendant raised an arguable defence of unconscionability regarding a personal guarantee he signed without legal advice to secure the release of vehicles held by the plaintiff.

The court set aside the default judgment against the personal defendant, allowing him to defend the action solely on the basis of unconscionability.

Metrolinx applied for a warrant to take possession of expropriated lands, while the respondent landlords and tenants applied to postpone possession, arguing Metrolinx failed to make a valid, good-faith offer of compensation under s. 25 of the Expropriations Act.

Metrolinx had offered $1.00 due to alleged environmental contamination but refused to answer questions or provide environmental reports during examinations.

The respondents sought an adjournment to bring a refusals motion before a Master.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the respondents had a reasonable basis to test whether Metrolinx's offer was made in good faith.

The tenants under two long-term ground leases appealed a majority arbitration award determining the fair market value of the lands for rent re-set purposes.

The court upheld the arbitrators' finding that the freehold interest, not the leasehold interest, was to be valued.

However, the court found the arbitrators erred in law by including the potential value of a freehold residential condominium project in the valuation, as a prior Divisional Court decision between the parties established that development potential unavailable to the tenants due to legal restrictions must be excluded.

Finding that issue estoppel applied to this prior determination, the court set aside the arbitration award and ordered a new hearing.