Douglas H. Levitt

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the court determined costs for both a preliminary motion and the appeal.

The respondent condominium corporation sought costs after successfully opposing a motion to strike portions of its factum and compendium.

The appellant management company sought substantial costs for the appeal after the court allowed the appeal and found the trial judge’s reasons insufficient.

The court applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that the requested appeal costs were slightly disproportionate to the value of the underlying claim.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent for the preliminary motion, and $10,000 all-inclusive costs were awarded to the appellant for the appeal.

The appellant property management company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim arising from the termination of a three‑year property management agreement.

The respondent condominium corporation had terminated the agreement for cause, alleging insubordination, recklessness, or gross negligence.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient because they failed to clearly identify which acts constituted cause for termination or explain why individually insufficient acts collectively justified termination.

The absence of adequate reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different deputy judge.

Following earlier reasons on an application concerning rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued that the respondent’s claimed costs were excessive due to court waiting time and time spent preparing brief cost submissions.

The court agreed the matter did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and instead assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

After reviewing both parties’ submissions and the bill of costs, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount payable to the respondent’s solicitors.

A tenant brought an application seeking a declaration that the Landlord and Tenant Board lacked jurisdiction to hear a landlord’s arrears of rent application because the tenant had vacated the unit before the hearing and because the named landlord was allegedly not a legal entity.

The court considered the interpretation of s. 87(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and the scope of the Board’s authority.

The court held that jurisdiction is established if the tenant was in possession of the rental unit when the landlord’s application was filed.

Issues relating to jurisdiction or the identity of the landlord should be raised before the Board itself.

The application was dismissed as the proper forum to determine the issues was the Landlord and Tenant Board.