Christian R. Piersanti

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants for damages arising from the termination of a commercial sublease for a race shop.

Two defendants, who managed the plaintiff's race car under a separate services agreement, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court found that the moving parties were not parties to the sublease and had no obligation under the services agreement to obtain an occupancy permit for the premises.

The court also dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with economic relations, and trespass due to a lack of evidence.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action against the moving parties was dismissed.

In a priority dispute under the Construction Lien Act, the court determined the relative priorities of several mortgagees and construction lien claimants.

The court held that professional fees incurred by a first mortgagee to protect its security constituted an 'advance' under section 78(6) of the Act, granting it priority.

The court also found that a $10 million advance made jointly to two borrowers under a second mortgage was an advance in respect of that mortgage, giving it priority over the lien claimants.

However, the court ruled that an advance made under a loan agreement to a third party was not an advance in respect of a collateral mortgage given by the developer as guarantor, meaning the lien claimants had priority over the collateral mortgage.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding (RFOP) seeking the production of documents and an extension of time to file hearing materials in an age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the initial document request and noted that the applicant had not filed the required Form 10 for a subsequent request.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for both parties to file their hearing materials and directed them to cease copying the Tribunal on unnecessary correspondence.