Daria Krysik

The respondent landlord brought a motion to set aside an interlocutory injunction and terminate a commercial lease based on alleged deficiencies in the tenant's insurance coverage.

The tenant had been granted an interlocutory injunction in April 2025 preventing lease termination, subject to compliance with insurance requirements within 20 days of receiving a Notice of Default.

The landlord served a Notice of Default identifying thirteen alleged deficiencies.

By the time of the motion hearing, the parties had resolved most issues, but the landlord continued to assert five deficiencies remained.

The court reviewed the insurance certificate and found that the tenant had substantially complied with all insurance requirements of the lease.

The motion was dismissed.

The Applicant, NP Health Clinic Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondent, 2456192 Ontario Inc., from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it for alleged failure to obtain adequate liability insurance as required by the lease.

The court found that the Landlord’s Notice of Default did not comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act because it failed to specify the particular deficiencies in the Tenant’s insurance.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, subject to the Landlord serving a compliant Notice of Default and the Tenant being given an opportunity to remedy any specified deficiencies.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Facilitate Settlement Corporation, Kai Wu, and Jane Doe from a judgment terminating their residential tenancy and awarding the landlords, Ly Innovative Group Inc. and Meizhang Zhou, over $300,000 in rental arrears and $100,000 in punitive damages.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred by refusing to sign a draft order reflecting a settlement, failing to recuse himself, and displaying bias.

The Court found no error in the motion judge’s exercise of discretion, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and admitted fresh evidence but found it did not affect the outcome.

The appellant appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement reached in open court regarding an estate and property dispute.

He argued the settlement should be set aside due to unconscionability, mutual mistake, and misrepresentation, claiming he did not understand the terms and was tricked by his former counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the test for unconscionability and concluding there was ample evidence that the appellant, who was represented by counsel, understood and agreed to the settlement.

The appellant landlord sought to recover unpaid rent and damages from former residential tenants in Small Claims Court.

The claim was dismissed by the Small Claims Court and upheld by the Divisional Court for lack of jurisdiction, on the basis that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the LTB's jurisdiction over such claims was contingent on the tenant being in possession of the rental unit.

Since the tenants had vacated, the LTB did not have jurisdiction, and the claims properly fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff, Kuldip Jhawer, sought summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendants, Harinder Singh and Rajwinder Aujla, which secured a $130,000 loan.

The defendants denied the mortgage's validity, claiming no funds were advanced and alleging fraud, and counterclaimed for set-off based on unrelated property transactions.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the mortgage claim, finding conclusive evidence of the loan's advancement, but dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike the counterclaim, ordering it to proceed to a separate trial as it was not intrinsically related to the mortgage and did not qualify for legal or equitable set-off.

Following a prior decision in which the plaintiff successfully resisted the defendant’s motion to oppose confirmation, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The unsuccessful self-represented party requested costs alleging misconduct by the opposing party and counsel.

The court found no basis for the misconduct allegations and applied the usual principle that costs follow the event.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount considered fair and reasonable.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to withdraw deemed admissions arising from a failure to respond to a request to admit.

The plaintiff simultaneously moved for judgment based on those deemed admissions.

Applying the three‑part conjunctive test from Antipas v. Coroneos, the court held that the proposed withdrawal raised triable issues, that the defendant had provided a reasonable explanation for the failure to respond, and that any prejudice to the plaintiff could be compensated by costs.

Although the defendant’s conduct demonstrated a “head in the sand” approach, denying withdrawal would have prevented adjudication of a significant monetary dispute on the merits.

The court set aside the deemed admissions, dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for judgment, and ordered costs in favour of the plaintiff.