Daniel Fridmar

The court considered whether Gan Yeladim Day Care Centre (GYDC) was entitled to remain in the premises of Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda Synagogue (BEBY) after the expiry of its lease and subsequent failed negotiations for a new lease.

The court found that GYDC had properly given notice of its intention to renew, and that the lease was effectively extended for another year based on the parties’ conduct and history.

The court granted GYDC equitable relief, allowing it to remain until August 31, 2026, to find a new location, and awarded costs against BEBY.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of two construction lien actions brought by JCL Concrete Pumping Limited and Ontario Trucking and Disposal Ltd. against SEMA Railway Structures Inc. and Metrolinx.

The court addresses the parties’ submissions on costs, ultimately awarding substantial indemnity costs to SEMA, the successful party, and rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments for limiting or reducing costs.

The decision reviews the applicable statutory framework, the conduct of the parties, and the offers to settle, and finds that SEMA’s costs were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The plaintiff, Lukey Capital Corp., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for failure to pay a promissory note.

The defendants admitted signing the note and making some interest payments but failed to repay the principal.

They raised various defences, including lack of clear default definition, alleged amendment of terms, lack of demand, prejudice to other creditors, and concerns about the note's execution and legal representation.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendants understood their obligations and failed to meet them.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal, outstanding interest, and fixed costs.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor, sought default judgment against the defendant Contractor for unpaid invoices related to a construction project.

The Contractor failed to respond to the claim and the motion.

The defendant Owner settled with the plaintiff prior to the case conference.

The court granted default judgment against the Contractor for the outstanding amount of $20,956.50, plus costs, after finding liability based on deemed admissions and evidence.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff's construction lien claims were frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The court found the plaintiff's claim for an increased management fee was contradicted by its own communications and conduct, and its lien claim on a property completed eight years prior was without merit.

Finding the claims frivolous and vexatious, and noting the plaintiff's poor financial health and lack of proven assets, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $35,000 in security for costs in two installments and stayed the action pending payment.

The plaintiff, an elderly homeowner, brought a motion to continue a Mareva injunction against her contractor, hold the proceeds of the sale of her home in court, and set aside a default judgment obtained by a mortgagee.

She alleged that the defendants conspired to defraud her by charging exorbitant amounts for a home renovation funded by unconscionable high-interest mortgages.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud based on the significant discrepancy between the quoted cost and the amount paid for the renovations.

The court continued the Mareva injunction until the contractor posted $500,000 in security, ordered the sale proceeds to remain in court, and set aside the default judgment, allowing the plaintiff to defend the mortgage action on the merits.

At the start of a motion for a Mareva injunction, a journalist requested permission to record the proceeding with his own audio recording device pursuant to s. 136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court denied the request, finding that while the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction permits media to use electronic devices for notetaking, this is subject to the presiding judge's discretion under the Act.

Because an official court reporter was present to provide a complete and accurate recording, the court held there was no need for a second recording by the media.

The appellants (homeowners) appealed a trial decision that found them liable for breach of an oral renovation contract and dismissed their claims against the builder and the City of Hamilton.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding the oral contract, the standard of construction, the interpretation of allowances, the homeowners' breach of contract, and the builder's compliance.

The appellate court deferred to the trial judge's credibility findings, particularly concerning expert evidence, and his assessment of damages, finding no palpable and overriding error.