Corinne Muccilli

The plaintiff commercial tenants brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent their eviction, relief from forfeiture, and a declaration that a December 2020 agreement was void or rescinded due to alleged bad faith and COVID-19 eviction moratoriums.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them, as their primary concern was a rent increase rather than the loss of the premises.

The court also held that relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the termination was based on a month-to-month tenancy rather than a breach, and that rescinding the agreement required a summary judgment motion, which was premature.

The moving party husband sought leave to appeal an interim order requiring him to pay child support, carry the expenses of the matrimonial home, and list an investment property for sale.

He also sought a stay of the order pending appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the order regarding the jurisdiction to order the sale of the investment property and the application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also granted a stay of the order on terms, adjusting the monthly payments pending the appeal.

The parties disputed their date of separation, the validity of a separation agreement, equalization, and spousal support.

The applicant husband claimed separation occurred in 2006, while the respondent wife claimed 2000.

The court found the parties separated in 2000 and lived separate lives under the same roof thereafter.

The court set aside a 2000 separation agreement, finding the husband was only shown the signature page and the agreement was unconscionable.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $57,797.33 and indefinite spousal support of $1,500 per month to the disabled husband.