Dina Peat

The Tenant (Augusta Studios Inc.) brought an application seeking declarations that its commercial lease was not properly terminated by the Landlord (8699011 Canada Inc.), that the lease was in effect until July 31, 2027, and that it was not in default.

The Landlord alleged breaches related to subletting the second floor without consent and subletting the basement, which it claimed was not part of the leased premises.

The court found that the basement was included in the lease, consent was not required for the second-floor sublease, and the Landlord failed to provide proper notice of default.

The court concluded the Landlord's termination was unlawful and granted the Tenant the declarations sought, also stating that relief from forfeiture would be granted if the Tenant were found in breach.

The applicant, DAA Holdings Ltd., sought a determination of minimum rent under a lease agreement for years 11-15, arguing the respondent, Teranet Inc., breached its duty to negotiate in good faith.

Teranet contended that since no agreement was reached, an "Inflation Factor" default provision should apply, resulting in a much lower rent increase.

The court found that Teranet failed to negotiate in good faith, effectively stonewalling negotiations and making no reasonable counter-proposals based on fair market rates.

The application was granted, and the minimum rent was set as proposed by DAA (with a slight adjustment conceded by DAA's counsel).

The tenant unilaterally repudiated a commercial lease and vacated the premises.

The landlord refused to accept the repudiation, kept the lease alive, and sued for rent arrears without taking steps to mitigate by re-letting the premises.

The tenant argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's precedent in Highway Properties, which allows a landlord to insist on performance without mitigating, should be overturned in light of modern contract law principles.

The court held it was bound by vertical stare decisis to follow Highway Properties and the Ontario Court of Appeal's subsequent affirmations of the rule.

The court also rejected the tenant's argument that the lease capped damages at two years' rent, finding the cap only applied if the landlord terminated the lease.

Summary judgment was granted to the landlord for rent arrears.

The Landlord, Daniels CCW Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Tenant, Larisa Shevchuk, and the Indemnifier, Emmanuel Paul, in a commercial lease dispute.

The Landlord sought damages for lost rents and pre-judgment interest after the Tenant defaulted on rent payments and the lease was terminated.

The Defendants admitted liability for arrears but disputed the claim for lost future rent, arguing failure to mitigate and improper damage calculation.

The court found the evidentiary record sufficient for summary judgment, rejecting the Defendants' arguments regarding mitigation and damage calculation, particularly given the re-letting of the premises.

The Landlord was granted judgment for $184,359.62.

The applicant, BBB Canada Ltd., sought court approval under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for an Omnibus Assignment and Assumption of Leases, FF&E and Trade Fixtures Agreement with DKB Capital.

The motion also requested orders for the assignment of certain leases under section 11.3 of the CCAA and a temporary sealing order for the unredacted agreement.

The court found the marketing process comprehensive, the consideration fair and reasonable, and the agreement beneficial to stakeholders.

The assignments were unopposed.

The court applied the Sherman Estate test for the sealing order and found it appropriate given its limited scope and time.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The appellant, Hafeez Fazl, sought a panel review of a single judge's decision to dismiss his appeal for delay.

He also requested an adjournment, initially for a religious pilgrimage, and subsequently on the grounds of being a party under a disability requiring a litigation guardian, citing a 2019 doctor's note.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the adjournment request due to a lack of proper medical or psychiatric evidence and the absence of any application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The panel found no error in the original dismissal of the appeal for delay, noting the underlying action had been dismissed on summary judgment as being "without a scintilla of merit" due to previous litigation on the same issues.

The motion for review was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The applicant parents and respondent son brought competing applications under the Partition Act regarding the ownership of a residential property.

The parents claimed 100% beneficial ownership based on a resulting or constructive trust, while the son claimed 100% beneficial ownership based on monetary gifts and his legal title.

The court found that the property was purchased as part of a family real estate joint venture.

The court declared the parties to be 50:50 owners, subject to a resulting trust recognizing the parents' financial contributions, and ordered the partition and sale of the property with the net proceeds to be divided equally.

The landlord applicant sought declaratory relief regarding its ability to lease former Sears space in an Ottawa shopping mall to a bank for a call centre.

The respondent, Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), argued its consent was required under the lease due to a material change to the mall's merchandising plan.

The court found that the proposed lease constituted a "major change to the merchandising balance of the mall," would "materially change pedestrian flow," and would "detrimentally affect the Tenant’s merchandising environment," thereby triggering HBC's consent requirement.

The court further determined that HBC had not waived its rights, had not unreasonably withheld consent, and had not acted in bad faith.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The tenant and landlord brought cross-applications regarding a commercial lease dispute arising during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties had agreed to a temporary rent reduction during the lockdown, but disputed its duration and whether the landlord was obligated to apply for the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program.

The court found the rent relief agreement validly terminated in August 2020 and that the landlord made no binding promise to apply for CECRA.

However, applying the doctrine of spent breach, the court held the tenant could still exercise its lease renewal option provided arrears were paid.

Claims regarding maintenance breaches were directed to trial.

The appellant sought to set aside a decision of the Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 37.14(b) on the grounds that he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The court found that the appellant failed to prove that his non-attendance was the result of accident or mistake.

Multiple notices of the hearing date were sent to the appellant's provided residence address, by courier, and by email.

The appellant had a history of delay and had previously made false claims about not receiving documents.

The motion was denied and costs were awarded to the respondent.

This case involves two applications concerning a commercial tenancy dispute.

The applicants, Northern Fabco Ltd., sought a declaration that they are the rightful tenant of a commercial property, arguing that the respondent landlord, 2206709 Ontario Inc., unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of a lease.

The court found that the landlord's refusal to consent was unreasonable, particularly because no valid reasons were provided at the time of refusal, and the refusal appeared to be driven by a collateral purpose to secure a new tenancy agreement.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his claim for unconscionability and upholding the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The appeal concerned a forfeiture clause in an agreement between a purchaser and vendor.

The Court of Appeal deferred to the motion judge's finding that there was no unconscionability based on the circumstances and relationship between the parties.

The court also found that while the damages document may have overstated the vendor's losses, the damages were significant and the forfeited amount was not out of all proportion to those damages, failing to meet the criteria established in Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc.

The case involved two consolidated applications concerning a shared sewer pipe between two adjacent properties, 52 James Street (owned by Margot J. Olivieri) and 54 James Street (owned by the Estate of Julie Valvasori, represented by Joan Henry).

Olivieri sought a declaration of a permanent prescriptive easement for the sewer line running from 52 James through 54 James to the city sewer, and damages for the Estate's interference with it.

The Estate sought a declaration that the pipe was trespassing and an order for its removal, requiring 52 James to establish its own sewer connection.

The court found that a prescriptive easement existed in favour of 52 James.

However, it limited the ancillary rights associated with the easement, denying Olivieri broad rights to alter the pipe or unrestricted entry.

The court awarded Olivieri $3,467.92 in damages for the Estate's unlawful capping of the pipe, offset by $480.09 owed by Olivieri for shared sewer maintenance.

The Estate's application to remove the pipe was dismissed.

The case involved two consolidated applications concerning a shared sewer pipe between two adjacent properties, 52 James Street (owned by Margot J. Olivieri) and 54 James Street (owned by the Estate of Julie Valvasori, represented by Joan Henry).

Olivieri sought a declaration of a permanent prescriptive easement for the sewer line running from 52 James through 54 James to the city sewer, and damages for the Estate's interference with it.

The Estate sought a declaration that the pipe was trespassing and an order for its removal, requiring 52 James to establish its own sewer connection.

The court found that a prescriptive easement existed in favour of 52 James.

However, it limited the ancillary rights associated with the easement, denying Olivieri broad rights to alter the pipe or unrestricted entry.

The court awarded Olivieri $3,467.92 in damages for the Estate's unlawful capping of the pipe, offset by $480.09 owed by Olivieri for shared sewer maintenance.

The Estate's application to remove the pipe was dismissed.

The plaintiff landlords moved for default judgment against the defendant tenant for arrears of rent and damages for lost future rent after terminating a commercial lease.

The tenant had failed to pay rent and was noted in default.

The court granted partial judgment for the rent arrears and costs, but declined to award damages for lost future rent on the default judgment motion, as the landlords failed to provide sufficient evidence of the actual rental value of the premises and the time required to find a new tenant.

The claim for lost future rent was directed to an assessment of damages.

Carole Farah brought a motion to set aside default judgment and a noting in default, along with a Writ of Seizure and Sale, arguing she was not personally liable on a promissory note signed on behalf of a corporation.

The court granted the motion, finding that Farah moved promptly, had a plausible explanation for default, and raised an arguable defence regarding corporate versus personal liability.

The court also noted the plaintiff's failure to disclose Farah's personal email address during the substituted service application.

The default judgment, noting in default, and all executions against Farah were set aside, and costs were awarded to Farah.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the corporate defendant for breach of a commercial lease.

The corporate defendant failed to pay rent and was noted in default.

The individual defendant had filed for bankruptcy, staying the action against him.

The court found the plaintiff established the breach and took reasonable steps to mitigate its losses.

Default judgment was granted for rent arrears and lost future rent totaling $1,311,672.05, plus substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a commercial lease and an associated indemnity agreement.

The defendants stopped paying rent, leading the plaintiff to terminate the lease and re-enter the premises.

Despite being served and given extensions to retain counsel, the defendants did not defend the action or respond to the motion.

The court found the plaintiff established liability and damages, granting default judgment for rent arrears, lost future rent, and costs on a substantial indemnity scale.