Colin C.G. Pye

Three consolidated actions arising from a joint venture between 2264052 Ontario Inc. and HarbourEdge Realty Administration Corporation for the development of 14 homes at Brockwoods subdivision in Brockville, Ontario, and a mortgage advanced by HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation.

The joint venture was terminated in August 2015.

The court determined that the joint venture's net profit was $838,865, entitling the plaintiff to $419,432.50 (50% share).

The court rejected the defendant's deduction of $561,270 for land contribution and excluded $235,902 in construction costs not intended to be borne by the joint venture.

The court awarded the mortgage lender $370,000 principal but rejected claims for $154,552.62 in expenses and $118,100 in fees.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at 10% per annum, compounding semi-annually, on both awards, with set-off ordered between the actions.

Three consolidated actions arising from a joint venture between 2264052 Ontario Inc. and HarbourEdge Realty Administration Corporation for the development of 14 homes at Brockwoods subdivision in Brockville, Ontario, and a mortgage advanced by HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation.

The joint venture was terminated in August 2015.

The court determined that the joint venture's net profit was $838,865, entitling the plaintiff to $419,432.50 (50% share).

The court rejected the defendant's deduction of $561,270 for land contribution and excluded $235,902 in construction costs not intended to be borne by the joint venture.

The court awarded the mortgage lender $370,000 principal but rejected claims for $154,552.62 in expenses and $118,100 in fees.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at 10% per annum, compounding semi-annually, on both awards, with set-off ordered between the actions.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion regarding the respondent's legal capacity to bring an action and the adjournment of their motion concerning abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the capacity issue, finding no error in the motion judge's determination that it was not plain and obvious the respondent lacked capacity.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the abuse of process issue, concluding that the motion judge erred by adjourning the matter sine die despite making findings that indicated an abuse of process.

The Court found the 'Milton Action' to be vexatious and an abuse of process, as it replicated a prior 'Toronto Action' without viable explanation, leading to unnecessary delay and expense.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the 'Milton Action'.

The defendant, Ira Greenspoon, brought a motion to set aside a noting in default that was requisitioned on April 15, 2019, in an action initiated in 2004.

Mr. Greenspoon's defence had been struck in 2016 for non-compliance with court orders.

Despite a six-year delay in bringing the motion, the court considered the complexity and long-running nature of the case, Mr. Greenspoon's mistaken belief that the trial would resolve claims against him, and an alleged verbal assurance from the plaintiff's principal.

Applying the criteria for setting aside default under Rule 19.03(1), the court found that denying the motion would cause significant prejudice to Mr. Greenspoon, given his assertion of being a "placeholder" director with no actual involvement in the corporate affairs.

The court granted the motion, setting aside the default noting and reinstating Mr. Greenspoon's Statement of Defence, emphasizing the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.

No costs were awarded as neither party provided cost outlines.

The applicants, a commercial tenant and its owner, sought relief from forfeiture after being evicted by their landlord.

The tenant argued that a new ten-year lease had been agreed upon in 2019 and that COVID-19 legislation prevented the eviction.

The court found that no new lease was formed, the tenancy was month-to-month, and the COVID-19 protections only applied to evictions for rent arrears, not expired leases.

The application was dismissed because relief from forfeiture is not available for the termination of a month-to-month tenancy.

The defendant tenant and guarantor brought a motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for rent arrears in favour of arbitration, relying on the arbitration clause in their commercial lease.

The landlord opposed the stay, arguing the matter was a proper one for summary judgment under section 7(2)(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding that the tenant's proposed defences regarding additional rent and mitigation did not raise genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court allowed the litigation to proceed and awarded the landlord $5,000 in full indemnity costs.