Devinder Singh Bath

This corrigendum corrected an earlier family law endorsement released on a motion by the applicant.

The court held that part of the earlier endorsement had been made in error and did not accord with the form of order actually signed.

Pursuant to Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court amended paragraph 11 by deleting wording that stated the respondent was incapable of managing her property.

The court further clarified that it had made no determination of incapacity within the meaning of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and confirmed that the signed order remained in full force and effect.

Following a successful application for damages arising from the wrongful termination of a commercial lease, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful tenant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 after obtaining damages and return of a security deposit totaling $49,735 following adjustment by the Court of Appeal.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the effect of a prior offer to settle.

Although the tenant’s offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 49.10, the court considered it under Rule 49.13 and found the landlord should have reasonably accepted it.

Costs were awarded partly on a substantial indemnity scale for the hearing and partially on a partial indemnity basis for the remaining work.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2006 child support order that imputed $50,000 income to him, seeking a reduction of support, elimination of arrears, and changes to parenting arrangements.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of enforcement proceedings, repeated failures to attend hearings, and incomplete financial disclosure by the moving party.

The court rejected the father's late allegation that he had not been served with the original application and found the evidence regarding his income unreliable.

Concluding that the father had the capacity to earn at least $35,000 annually, the court varied support prospectively only from January 1, 2011 while making limited adjustments to arrears related to historic daycare expenses.

The court ordered recalculation of arrears, ongoing monthly support of $303, and additional payments toward arrears.

A commercial tenant sought damages after its landlord terminated the lease, changed the locks, and leased the premises directly to the tenant’s sub‑tenants.

The court considered whether the landlord complied with the notice requirements under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act before exercising a right of re‑entry.

The court held that the notices relied upon failed to specify breaches, provide a reasonable opportunity to remedy them, or require compensation as required by the statute.

The landlord’s re‑entry was therefore unlawful.

Damages were awarded based primarily on the tenant’s lost sublease rent for the remaining lease term and the return of the security deposit.

Costs decision following a summary judgment motion where both sides achieved partial success.

The defendant obtained orders striking the personal plaintiff’s claim and a claim for damages for improvident sale.

However, the corporate plaintiff succeeded on the primary issue concerning the mortgagee in possession’s responsibility to insure the corporate plaintiff’s interest.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the corporate plaintiff should receive reduced costs to reflect the divided success.

On a defendant mortgagee's summary judgment motion, the court considered whether a mortgagee in possession owed and breached a duty to act prudently regarding insurance of the mortgagor's property interest after cancellation of coverage.

The record contained material conflicts on notice of cancellation, communications between agents, and whether reliance on the mortgagee's blanket insurance could reasonably be inferred, requiring credibility assessments not suitable for summary judgment.

Applying summary judgment principles, the court held that genuine issues requiring a trial remained on duty, breach, causation, and damages, including potential accounting issues tied to any insurance recovery.

The court granted limited summary judgment only to strike the personal plaintiff's claim and the improvident sale allegation, and otherwise dismissed the motion.