Christopher Hacio

A housing co-operative applied for a writ of possession following termination of a member’s membership and occupancy rights for permitting a non-member partner to reside in the unit beyond the permitted period.

The respondent, who had disabilities and relied on assistance from her partner, argued that eviction was unreasonable and discriminatory.

The court reviewed the board’s decision under a reasonableness standard and found the board relied on irrelevant prior complaints and failed to properly consider the partner’s membership application.

The evidence did not support concerns about misconduct, overcrowding, or funding risk.

Relief from forfeiture was granted and the writ of possession refused.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of a defence medical examination report and later sought costs after the report was produced following service of the motion.

The defendants argued the motion was unnecessary and that no order for a medical examination had been made under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, rendering rule 33.06(2) inapplicable.

The court held that disclosure obligations could still arise under the broader document production rules and found the defendant failed to produce the report promptly after receiving it.

Although the motion was resolved prior to argument, it was reasonable for the moving party to have brought it.

Partial indemnity costs of $1,000 were awarded, reflecting both the defendant’s delay and the plaintiff’s own failure to comply with an earlier order to set the action down for trial.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively to strike portions alleged to be scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious under Rule 25.11.

The claim alleged that the defendants conspired to remove the plaintiffs from corporate control and divert the business of two companies to another entity controlled by the defendants.

The court held that, assuming the pleaded facts to be true, the statement of claim disclosed multiple viable causes of action including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, inducing breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and breaches of corporate duties.

The court also declined to strike contextual narrative allegations from the pleading, finding they were not so egregious as to warrant removal.

The motion was dismissed, with the court noting that a demand for particulars would have been the more appropriate procedural step.

Following a successful motion for partial summary judgment dismissing an insurance claim for contents loss arising from a hotel fire, the insurer sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000.

The plaintiff challenged the reasonableness of the claimed hours, the use of two counsel, and the hourly rates applied.

The court reviewed the governing principles under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant appellate authority emphasizing reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Although the insurer succeeded on the underlying motion, the court found the time docketed and partial indemnity rates somewhat excessive and reduced the requested amount.

Costs of $17,500 plus HST were awarded as fair and reasonable for the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff's hotel and business were damaged by fire.

The plaintiff claimed $825,296.32 for destroyed contents under its insurance policy with the defendant insurer.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the policy did not include contents coverage, and brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the contents claim.

The court applied the rules of construction for insurance contracts and found the policy clearly and unambiguously did not provide contents coverage, as no specific limit or premium was shown for contents on the declarations page.

The insurer's motion for partial summary judgment was granted.