D. Collett

The applicant landlord commenced an application seeking various relief, including termination of commercial leases and a declaration regarding rent adjustments.

The respondent tenant brought a motion under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the application in favour of arbitration.

The court applied the Peace River framework and found that the matters in dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement in the leases.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The self-represented defendant requested a case conference to dispute a recently signed consent order dismissing the action, alleging he did not agree to waive the 30-day appeal period and accusing plaintiff's counsel of switching signature pages and the court of bias.

The court maintained that the signed consent was valid and the order had been entered.

The court directed the defendant to bring a formal motion on notice if he wished to set aside the order.

The parties reached a settlement following a trial management conference and submitted a consent to a dismissal order.

The court initially rejected the consent due to issues with legal representation for the corporate defendants.

After receiving confirmation that the self-represented individual defendant had filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person and that counsel of record had executed the consent for the corporate defendants, the court granted the consent order dismissing the action and directing the payout of $1,000,000 held as security.

At a trial management conference, the self-represented defendant requested an adjournment of the peremptory trial date, citing medical issues and lack of counsel.

The court declined to entertain the request without a formal motion on notice.

The court also ordered counsel of record for the corporate defendants, who failed to attend the conference without explanation, to appear at the commencement of trial to show cause why costs should not be awarded against him personally.