6 total
Adjournment granted for summary judgment motion, but tenant ordered to pay future rent into court.
The defendants (landlord) brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff (tenant) to pay alleged rent arrears and future rent into court.
The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for declaratory relief regarding the commercial lease and requested an adjournment to reconstitute her cross-motion as a motion for summary judgment.
The court granted the adjournment but ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,250 per month into court pending the hearing of the motions, noting that the fundamental obligation to pay rent under the lease must be maintained.
Contempt motion dismissed for failure to prove deliberate breach beyond reasonable doubt.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against the defendants for alleged non-compliance with a prior court order requiring certain construction and repair work at leased premises.
Applying the established tripartite test for contempt—requiring a clear order, deliberate and wilful breach, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt—the court held that although the order was clear, the evidence did not establish deliberate or wilful non-compliance.
Correspondence between the parties showed the defendants attempting to schedule and perform the ordered work while encountering obstacles and additional demands from the plaintiff outside the scope of the order.
The contempt motion was dismissed.
The court nevertheless issued further directions and timelines to complete outstanding work, including water hookup and construction of a second bathroom.
Successful lien claimants awarded partial indemnity costs after fixing construction lien holdback.
Following a successful motion fixing the statutory construction lien holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to lien claimants.
The successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs based on a late offer to settle and alleged litigation conduct by the opposing mortgagee representative.
The court held that the offer did not trigger Rule 49 consequences because it was served fewer than seven days before the hearing, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying costs beyond the usual partial indemnity scale.
Costs were therefore awarded primarily to the two counsel who carried the motion on behalf of all lien claimants, with modest costs granted to several additional claimants who attended but did not argue the motion.
CPL vacated only if plaintiff pays sale shortfall into court.
The plaintiff sought an order setting aside two certificates of pending litigation registered against title to residential property in Vaughan to allow completion of a pending sale.
The court found that the certificates had been obtained on the basis of affidavit evidence that was misleading and false in material respects, including failure to disclose that the registered owner had died.
The court held that the plaintiff should not benefit from such misrepresentations but permitted the certificates to be vacated only on strict conditions.
The plaintiff was required to pay into court an amount representing the difference between the sale proceeds and the court‑determined fair market value of the property, less specified deductions.
If the payment was not made, the certificates would remain and the court would consider appointing a receiver.
Holdback funds released before certificates of completion were issued violated the Construction Lien Act and could not reduce the basic holdback.
The plaintiff and other lien claimants sought a determination of the basic holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act following the sale of a partially completed retirement home project by the defendant mortgagee.
The mortgagee argued the holdback was reduced by payments made to sub-trades during construction.
The court found that the owner violated section 25 of the Act by releasing holdback funds before certificates of completion were issued, and that such a breach could not be cured retroactively.
The court fixed the basic holdback at the full 10% of the value of services and materials provided, plus applicable GST.
Court refused to revisit corporate employee tort liability precedents.
The appellant asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider its prior jurisprudence on tortious acts by employees of corporations.
The court declined to revisit the policy considerations addressed in earlier appellate authorities and held that any reconsideration should be undertaken by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.