G. Low

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that it had validly renewed its commercial lease and other relief.

The respondent landlord argued the tenant was in default.

The court applied the principle of estoppel by convention, finding a shared mistaken assumption regarding rent payments during the COVID-19 CECRA program, which prevented the landlord from relying on an alleged rent shortfall.

The court also granted relief from forfeiture for minor outstanding bank fees, noting the landlord's delayed demand for these fees.

The lease was declared validly renewed, and the landlord was ordered to pay the tenant's costs.

The plaintiff tenant entered into a 10-year commercial lease for a café in a new condominium development.

The tenant later abandoned the premises and sued the defendant landlord for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the landlord falsely represented the occupancy dates of surrounding buildings and the availability of convenient, free customer parking.

The court found the landlord negligently misrepresented the parking situation by failing to disclose that a shared facilities committee and condominium concierges would control access, creating significant barriers for retail customers.

The court held that the entire agreement clause in the lease did not preclude the tort claim because it did not address free customer parking.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for operating losses and build-out costs, and the landlord's counterclaim for breach of lease was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for additional security for costs, which was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity scale, while the defendant argued for partial indemnity costs payable only if the plaintiff was successful at trial.

The court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's conduct was not abusive or reprehensible, but fixed costs at $9,000 payable within 30 days due to the motion's lack of merit and timing.

The defendant brought a motion seeking additional security for costs on the eve of trial, arguing that the plaintiff's pleadings amendments caused unforeseen and material increases in costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to provide evidence of how the additional costs were incurred or that they resulted from the amendments.

The court also noted the defendant's delay in bringing the motion, concluding that the interests of justice favored allowing the plaintiff to proceed to trial without the disruption of a last-minute security order.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion for security for costs, which was resolved on consent.

The Defendants, Mehran Amini and Hanif Joshaghani, sought $12,471.52 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Plaintiff, 5001398 Ontario Corp., proposed $2,500.

The court found that exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award despite the consent resolution, as deferring costs facilitated settlement.

While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in agreeing to post security contributed to the litigation costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not meet the threshold for reprehensible behaviour.

The court also considered the Defendants' contribution to delay and the proportionality of counsel's docketed hours.

Ultimately, costs were fixed at $4,500 on a partial indemnity scale, payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

Following the dismissal of Unimac's motion seeking the recusal of the Master on grounds of racial bias, the responding parties sought costs.

Unimac argued costs should be deferred to the Divisional Court pending judicial review.

The Master determined it was appropriate to fix costs immediately.

Finding that Unimac's motion was an abuse of process, involved scurrilous and unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of the judicial officer, caused unnecessary delay, and that Unimac failed to accept a reasonable offer to settle, the Master awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

Unimac was ordered to pay $52,810.37 to the Lead Respondents and $6,728.30 to St. Clare's.