Heather J. Williams

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board awarding the tenants rent abatement for a rodent infestation.

The landlords argued the Board erred in its definitions of landlord and tenant, and in finding they failed to meet their maintenance obligations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's definitions and holding that the Board's conclusions regarding the infestation and maintenance obligations were unappealable findings of fact or mixed fact and law.

The plaintiff, Rama Hashemi, represented by a litigation guardian, sought a declaration of capacity to manage his financial affairs and court approval of a settlement.

The court reviewed capacity assessments from three designated assessors, which collectively affirmed Mr. Hashemi's capacity.

Consequently, the court declared Mr. Hashemi capable of managing his financial affairs.

However, because he was no longer considered a 'person under disability' under the Rules of Civil Procedure, court approval of the settlement was deemed unnecessary and inappropriate, as he was capable of making such decisions himself.

This endorsement addresses procedural issues arising from a "counter-application" filed by the respondent and a joint applicant.

The court clarified that "counter-applications" do not exist under the Rules of Civil Procedure, but treated the filing as an irregularity in commencing a new application.

The hearing was adjourned, and orders were made regarding the filing of cross-examination transcripts, confirmation forms, and crucially, that the "counter-application" would not be heard unless the applicant's sister, Helen Butt, was properly served due to her potential interest in the relief sought.

Following a 34-day jury trial for a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court determined several post-verdict issues.

The jury awarded damages to a minor plaintiff who sustained a traumatic brain injury and to his half-sister, while finding the co-defendants not liable.

The court declined to amend the jury's $55,000 award for post-secondary studies, finding it was not a mere clerical error.

The court exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest from the date the insurer had actual knowledge of the claim, despite the lack of formal written notice under the Insurance Act.

A management fee of $30,000 was awarded based on the real and substantial possibility that the minor plaintiff would be found incapable of managing his property upon turning 18.

On costs, the court declined to give weight to the unsuccessful defendant's non-compliant global settlement offer because it failed to allocate amounts among the separately represented plaintiffs.

The unsuccessful defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs and the successful defendants' costs up to the date it admitted liability via a Sanderson order.

The plaintiffs, a real estate agent and her brokerage, sued the defendant for defamation and unjust enrichment.

The defamation claim arose from a letter the defendant sent to the brokerage and others, complaining about the agent's conduct and invoicing after a real estate transaction fell through due to a dispute over a buyer representation agreement.

The unjust enrichment claim was for services rendered by the agent.

The court found that while some statements in the defendant's letter were defamatory and made with malice, the defence of qualified privilege applied because malice was not the dominant purpose of the communication.

The defence of fair comment also failed due to untrue factual statements.

However, the court found that the plaintiff's own conduct disentitled her to damages for defamation.

The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as the defendant was not enriched, and there was a juristic reason for any perceived enrichment.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiffs, commercial tenants, obtained an interim interlocutory injunction prohibiting the defendant landlord from forfeiture actions.

The landlord subsequently sought to set aside the injunction, while the tenants sought its continuation pending a summary judgment motion regarding the enforceability of minutes of settlement that purportedly amended the lease.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the minutes of settlement, irreparable harm to the tenants if the injunction was not continued, and that the balance of convenience favoured continuation.

The court dismissed the landlord's motion to set aside the injunction and ordered its continuation until the summary judgment motion, with the tenants providing undertakings for damages.

The plaintiff, Rosemary Sheldon, succeeded in her personal injury action against the defendant, Manuel Reyna, following a 15-day judge-alone trial.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's requests for correction of a damages award for gardening services, prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, costs on a partial indemnity basis, and an order for periodic payments.

The court confirmed the total judgment amount, awarded prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and granted partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, with a minor reduction in disbursements.

An order for periodic payments was also made.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) was successful in its application to enforce guarantees against Anwar Fares and Maya Bakhos, and in opposing the guarantors' application for a declaration that the guarantees were invalid.

The court, therefore, addressed the issue of costs.

TD sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual provisions in the loan agreement and guarantees.

The court, exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found TD entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court adjusted the claimed amount, disallowing certain disbursements (flights to Ottawa, unexplained courier/taxi fees) and assessing fees based on proportionality and the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectation, ultimately ordering the guarantors to pay TD $25,723.03.

The applicant sought an order without notice to dispense with service of a notice of application on 79 registered homeowners.

The underlying application sought to remove a restrictive covenant from two lots to allow for a new road.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that service was impractical under rule 16.04(1) based merely on cost and potential delay.

The court dismissed the request to dispense with service but ordered substituted service by leaving copies at the homes and sending them by regular mail.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary order to stay the mother's application to change their son's name from William Jr. Ndze Fuhgeh to William Benjamin Ndze Fuhgeh Bernard.

The father's main application sought to prohibit the mother from changing the child's name without his consent.

The court granted the temporary stay, finding it was not in the child's best interests for the name change application to proceed immediately, as ongoing case-managed matters and the father's main application might clarify relevant issues.

Costs were reserved to the judge overseeing the father's main application.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank sought judgment against a corporation and its personal guarantors for a defaulted small business loan.

The guarantors, a married couple, sought a declaration that their personal guarantees were invalid, arguing they were misled about the extent of their liability (believing it was limited to 25% of the outstanding loan, not unlimited as indicated by an 'x' in the form).

The court found the guarantees were unlimited, rejected arguments based on CSBFA regulations as irrelevant to the bank-customer relationship, and dismissed the non est factum defence due to the guarantors' failure to read the documents and the presence of a "no representations" clause.

Judgment was granted in favour of the bank.

The plaintiff, Daly Square Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action seeking approximately $130,000 plus interest and possession of the mortgaged property, and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants, 1786097 Ontario Inc. and Camille Mikhael, opposed, arguing for equitable set-off and that their $500,000 counterclaim for property damage was not statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on both its claim and the defendants' counterclaim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding equitable set-off and the limitation period for the counterclaim.

The court also ruled that the defendants were not entitled to legal set-off.

The plaintiffs sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion for leave to register certificates of pending litigation.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the principle of indemnity and the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectations.

Despite the plaintiffs' higher actual costs, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, balancing the parties' expectations and the motion's importance to the plaintiffs, though it was not complex.

Costs were fixed at $7,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

The applicant sought judicial review of notices of trespass issued by the respondent school boards.

The application was dismissed for delay, and the respondents sought their costs.

The court found no reason to depart from the usual rule that the successful parties are entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant was ordered to pay fixed costs of $5,611.52 to one board and $1,138.48 to the other.

Following a five-day family law trial where the applicant was almost entirely successful, she sought costs.

The self-represented respondent did not file responding submissions.

The court found the respondent's behaviour during the litigation to be highly unreasonable, though not amounting to bad faith, as he failed to produce documents, reneged on a settlement, and prolonged the trial.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicant in the all-inclusive amount of $26,173.99.

The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision for which the defendant admitted liability.

The court found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, specifically chronic pain and somatic symptom disorder.

The court awarded $100,000 in non-pecuniary general damages, $394,800.32 for future loss of income, $19,655.37 for out-of-pocket expenses, and various amounts for future care costs, while dismissing the claim for past loss of income.

The separated parents disagreed on which school their two young sons should attend.

The mother wanted them to attend a local public school offering early French immersion, while the father wanted them to attend a private school founded by his mother.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as class size, individual attention, continuity, and the children's specific needs.

The court ordered that both children attend the private school, noting the smaller class sizes and the father's parents' offer to pay tuition.

This summary trial addressed the plaintiff landlord's claim for damages following the defendant tenant's wrongful repudiation of a commercial lease.

The court determined whether the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate his losses after the tenant vacated the premises early and calculated the damages owed.

The court found that the landlord's mitigation efforts were reasonable given the local market conditions and awarded damages for unpaid rent, the present value of the rent differential with a new tenant, and interest.

The applicants, Ahmed Abou-Gabal and Velika Realty Inc., brought a motion seeking certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against properties owned by Jovalyn and Derian Tuitt.

The applicants' counterclaim referenced alleged mortgages and defaults but did not explicitly claim an interest in land or seek remedies like foreclosure or sale.

The court found that the counterclaim, as pleaded, did not establish an interest in land in question, which is a prerequisite for issuing a CPL.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if an interest in land had been established, the properties were not unique, and damages would likely be an adequate remedy, which would also weigh against granting a CPL.

The motion for CPLs was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support retroactively, alleging the respondent misrepresented his income and falsified financial documents.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility due to a pattern of concealing income and falsifying records.

While most of the respondent's claimed business expenses (mileage allowances, car payments, insurance, cell, internet, gas heating, bookkeeping) were rejected, the court allowed a deduction of one-third of claimed gas and repair expenses.

The respondent's 2014 gross income was also adjusted upwards based on new evidence.