Ian Latimer

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that the respondent tenant breached a commercial lease and that the lease was validly terminated, seeking vacant possession.

The tenant sought a declaration that the lease was not validly terminated or, alternatively, relief from forfeiture.

The court found that the tenant committed numerous and ongoing breaches, including making significant structural alterations without prior approval or building permits, and installing heavy equipment without consent.

The court held that the landlord properly terminated the lease and that the tenant's deliberate and flagrant conduct disentitled it to the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture.

The landlord's application was granted and the tenant's application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to remove Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP as lawyers of record for the plaintiff, LaSalle Electrical Contractors Inc. Norton Rose also represented the third party, Jensen Building Ltd., in this action and a related construction lien action.

The defendants argued that Norton Rose was in a conflict of interest and could misuse confidential information obtained from the third party against the defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding a potential for conflict and mischief, and ordered Norton Rose removed as counsel for the plaintiff.

A cross-motion for consolidation and waiver of the implied undertaking rule was adjourned.

The plaintiff vendor sued the defendant purchaser for damages after the purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction for a newly built home.

The purchaser argued she was pressured into signing the agreement by a real estate agent she believed represented the vendor, and that the vendor failed to mitigate its damages.

The court found that the agent acted for the purchaser, not the vendor, and that no undue pressure was applied.

The court also held that the vendor took reasonable steps to mitigate its losses by reselling the property in a declining market.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $194,155.60.

The plaintiff in a construction lien action brought a motion to compel the defendant to serve an affidavit of documents and attend examinations for discovery before the plaintiff delivered responding materials to the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The court granted leave to bring the motion but dismissed the request for an affidavit of documents.

The court held that under the amended Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no automatic right to an affidavit of documents without a discovery plan, and requiring one in the face of a summary judgment motion would be disproportionate and contrary to the modern approach to summary judgment.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment that resulted in dismissal of the action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court reiterated the general principle that costs follow the event and rejected submissions that costs should not be awarded.

Although the plaintiff raised concerns regarding mental health issues and impecuniosity, the court concluded that these circumstances did not justify departing from the ordinary rule.

The defendant’s claimed costs were found to be reasonable in light of the work performed and the parties’ bills of costs.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount claimed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action to recover three alleged loans made between 1998 and 2000.

The defendant argued the claims were statute-barred under the former Limitations Act, which imposed a six‑year limitation period.

The court found the first loan became due in 1999 and the other two loans were properly characterized as demand loans whose causes of action arose when the funds were advanced.

The plaintiff failed to produce written acknowledgements restarting the limitation period and provided insufficient medical evidence to establish incapacity suspending the limitation period.

The court held there was no trust or equitable claim capable of avoiding the limitation defence and no genuine issue requiring a trial.