Emraan Dharsi

The moving defendant sought to set aside a noting in default in a contract action for unpaid real estate commission arising from a commercial leasing arrangement.

Applying r. 19.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Franchetti/Kisel factors, the court held that the delay was adequately explained by prior counsel's health-related incapacity and reporting failures, that the moving party acted promptly once the default judgment motion came to its attention, and that the claim was straightforward.

The court found no material prejudice to the plaintiffs if the matter proceeded on the merits and held that the moving party had at least an arguable defence based on lack of contractual privity.

The noting in default was set aside and the moving party was granted 30 days to serve and file its statement of defence.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

This costs decision follows a summary judgment motion by Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) against 1108135 Ontario Inc. operating as Trends Décor and Roger Alonzo.

The court apportioned costs after finding the corporate defendant liable for both debts and Mr. Alonzo liable only for the Business Operating Line.

The court fixed costs at $11,475.35, payable jointly and severally by the defendants, after considering the parties’ relative success and the reasonableness of the costs claimed.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, moved for summary judgment against the defendants regarding a Business Operating Line (BOL) and a Visa Credit Card.

The corporate defendant admitted liability, but Roger Alonzo disputed personal liability.

The court found Mr. Alonzo personally liable for the BOL debt but not for the Visa debt, as the evidence did not establish that he agreed to personal liability for the Visa.

The court granted judgment accordingly and addressed costs based on the mixed outcome.

The plaintiff, Muhammad Asif, brought an urgent, ex parte motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and a Mareva injunction regarding property at 341 Lawford Road, Vaughan, Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the property had already been sold by secured creditors under a power of sale, and that Asif’s equitable mortgage claim could not take priority over registered interests.

The court also found that notice should have been given to secured and judgment creditors, and that the plaintiff failed to provide full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The decision reviews the requirements for ex parte Mareva injunctions and the duty of full disclosure.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the denial of a Mareva injunction motion brought by the plaintiff.

The injunction, initially granted ex parte, was denied because the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case and did not make full and frank disclosure.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought costs on a complete indemnity basis.

The court, balancing the parties' conduct, awarded costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $12,500.00 plus HST and disbursements.

The applicant landlord brought an application regarding a commercial tenancy after the respondent tenants unilaterally withheld rent for 10 months.

The tenants claimed they were entitled to an abatement of rent because a failed Fire Code inspection delayed their ability to open a daycare facility on the premises.

The court found that while the landlord was responsible for some delay in rectifying the Fire Code violations, the tenants' withholding of 10 months' rent was an unduly aggressive self-help remedy.

The court granted a 4-month rent abatement, ordered the tenants to pay the remaining arrears within 45 days, and declined to order forfeiture of the lease.

The court also ordered the parties to cooperate on revising the design of a fence the tenants had installed without approval.