Christina M. Bowman

The decision addresses a motion by Jigar Vijaykumar Patel to extend the time for delivering costs submissions and the determination of costs following an unsuccessful motion to set aside a prior order.

The court grants the extension without costs and fixes costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that Jigar’s conduct, while not egregious, merited an elevated scale due to an attempt to mislead the court.

The plaintiff tenant sought immediate relief from forfeiture and a mandatory injunction to restore its commercial tenancy after the defendant landlord terminated the lease due to the tenant's use of the premises, which rendered the property uninsurable without a sprinkler system upgrade.

The court found the tenant was in breach of the lease for failing to upgrade the sprinkler system, as this cost was attributable to their specific hazardous use under the "net lease" terms.

The court dismissed the tenant's request for a mandatory injunction but granted temporary relief from forfeiture for 30 days, allowing the tenant to remedy the breach by installing an upgraded sprinkler system at its own cost or through an agreed arrangement with the landlord.

Operations were prohibited until the system was installed and approved by an insurer.

The applicants sought a declaration that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property was null and void after the respondent purchasers failed to waive inspection and financing conditions by the deadline.

The respondents had proposed an amendment to the APS instead of waiving the conditions, which the applicants did not accept.

The respondents subsequently registered a Purchaser's Lien on the property.

The court held that the APS was null and void because the conditions were not explicitly waived or fulfilled in writing as required.

The court ordered the Purchaser's Lien discharged and the deposit returned to the respondents, finding no breach of the duty of good faith by the applicants.

The plaintiffs sought orders for payment of funds into court and a vesting order against the defendants' property (26 Merrittonia Street) to secure potential judgment for breach of contract related to a failed real estate transaction for a different property (14 Annual Circle).

The plaintiffs had also registered a Caution against the Merrittonia property.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to discharge the Caution, declare no plaintiff interest in the property, and seek leave to issue a third-party claim.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding they had no interest in the Merrittonia property to support a Caution or vesting order, and their claim was for damages, not a specific fund.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the discharge of the Caution and granting leave for the third-party claim.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a motion for security for costs brought by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 507 (PCC 507) and supported by Larlyn Property Management Ltd. Precision Tree Care Ltd. (Precision), the successful party on the original motion, sought costs.

The court applied Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as the result, complexity, and the parties' conduct.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00, payable by PCC 507 to Precision, noting that Precision was successful and the matter was moderately complex.

Larlyn was not awarded costs and was not ordered to pay costs, as it took no position on the original motion.

The court also admonished counsel for not adhering to page limits for submissions and for attempting to re-argue the underlying motion.

The defendant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 507, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Precision Tree Care Ltd., in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff claimed for tree trimming services, alleging verbal authorization for work significantly exceeding the initial estimate.

The defendant argued the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious based on the evidence provided, including records of creditor enforcement and lack of income.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's case was not "plainly devoid of merit," a lower threshold for impecunious plaintiffs.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed.