H. Rosenberg

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to claim a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property owned by the plaintiff, and for leave to issue and register the CPL.

The parties, who are family members, were involved in a dispute over pooled funds and property investments.

The court found that while there was a triable issue regarding the defendants' claim to an interest in the property, the equities favoured the plaintiff.

The property was not unique, damages would be a satisfactory remedy, and the harm to the plaintiff in granting the CPL outweighed the harm to the defendants.

The motion to issue the CPL was dismissed.

The defendants moved to set aside ex-parte certificates of pending litigation and an injunction previously granted to the plaintiffs regarding three properties.

The plaintiffs claimed the properties were transferred to the defendants in trust, but failed to disclose to the ex-parte judge that they were in mortgage arrears prior to the transfers and that the defendants had assumed nearly $1.2 million in mortgages.

The court found this failure to make full and fair disclosure shocking and sufficient to discharge the CPLs and the injunction.

The defendants' requests for immediate eviction and forfeiture of a $50,000 deposit were dismissed pending further evidence.

The applicant tenant, who operated a restaurant, was evicted by the respondent landlord for alleged rental arrears.

The parties had never signed a formal lease and disputed the terms of the tenancy and the exact amount owed.

The court granted the tenant temporary relief from forfeiture, conditional upon the payment of admitted base rent arrears, outstanding realty taxes, and water bills, to allow the parties 60 days to negotiate the terms of the tenancy.