Cynthia Diane Davis

The property owners appealed the current value assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the base current value using the direct comparison approach, preferring the respondent's comparable sales data.

The Board applied a 17.4% negative adjustment to account for poor lot conditions, including significant year-round flooding and a weedy shoreline, consistent with a prior Board decision.

The Board declined to apply a further negative adjustment for proximity to an alleged commercial property due to insufficient evidence.

The final assessed value was reduced to $404,800.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after the respondent landlord issued a notice of default for unpaid additional rent and utility arrears.

The tenant had withheld payment of the disputed amounts pending arbitration, arguing the landlord failed to properly substantiate the charges.

The court held that the tenant was in breach of the lease, as the lease contained a 'no deduction' clause requiring payment of rent without set-off pending arbitration.

The court declined to grant relief from forfeiture pending arbitration, finding the tenant's conduct wilful, but granted a temporary 20-day relief period for the tenant to cure the default by paying all arrears.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

They argued the Board erred by failing to apply a $10,000 reduction for abutting commercial properties and a 35% reduction for shoreline and floodplain characteristics.

The Associate Chair found no error regarding the $10,000 reduction, as the original panel reasonably preferred the respondent's evidence.

However, the Associate Chair found a lack of clarity regarding whether the 35% reduction was actually applied to the final valuation, constituting an error that warranted a rehearing on the valuation issue.

The applicant, GolfNorth Properties Inc., sought declarations that its June 14 Offer to purchase shares/LPUs was not a "Permitted Offer" under the relevant agreements, thereby invalidating Mill-Gate Holdings Inc.'s exercise of a right of first refusal.

The respondents argued GolfNorth Properties lacked standing and that the June 14 Offer was a Permitted Offer.

The court found that GolfNorth Properties, as a non-party to the agreements, lacked standing due to privity of contract.

Alternatively, the court determined that the definition of "Permitted Offer" was ambiguous and, considering the parties' subsequent conduct, concluded that the June 14 Offer was indeed a Permitted Offer, which validly triggered Mill-Gate's right of first refusal.

The application was dismissed.

Following the defendants' complete success on a summary judgment motion, they sought costs of $13,897.75 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants had previously delivered an offer to settle that would have allowed the plaintiff to walk away without paying rent or costs.

The plaintiff's costs submissions were brief and lacked detail.

The court found the defendants' claim for costs to be fair and reasonable, awarding them the full amount sought.

The appellant, who acted as guardian of property for his mother, appealed a judgment dismissing his application to pass accounts and ordering him to repay misappropriated funds and unjustified legal expenses to the estate.

The application judge also deprived him of compensation due to his shocking conduct and blatant disregard of his fiduciary obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the majority of the application judge's findings, rejecting arguments of unfairness and insufficient reasons.

The appeal was allowed in part only to permit the estate to reimburse the appellant for a portion of legal fees if it successfully collects a specific costs award.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action on summary judgment and the dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion to amend pleadings, the court addressed costs.

The defendant relied on two offers to settle and sought partial indemnity costs to the close of pleadings and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court held that under Rule 49.10(2) a defendant’s offer to settle does not give rise to substantial indemnity costs and that the offers lacked sufficient compromise to justify such an award.

The court fixed the defendant’s costs on a partial indemnity basis.