Ivan Lavrence

The defendants and third party brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs, who operated a fitness club before defaulting on their commercial lease and equipment leases.

The court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient assets, impecuniosity, or a good chance of success on the merits of their conspiracy and conversion claims.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $80,000 in security for costs for each of the Crunch defendants, the Church defendant, and the third party.

The plaintiff abandoned a motion for directions regarding garnishment and priority issues.

The non-party, Fraser Mason, sought costs of $63,644.52 on a partial indemnity scale for the abandoned motion.

The court found the claimed amount excessive, noting that portions of the costs related to other aspects of the litigation and that both parties had engaged in aggressive litigation tactics.

The court fixed costs at $10,000 payable by the plaintiff to Fraser Mason, but stayed enforcement until Fraser Mason paid outstanding costs awards previously ordered against him.

The plaintiff vendor sold a property to the defendant purchaser under an agreement that included a $550,000 bonus payable if the purchaser obtained a 'favourable decision' on its 'current application' for rezoning to permit a supermarket.

The purchaser appealed the town's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) but ultimately settled for a zoning amendment that permitted retail use but not a supermarket.

The plaintiff sued for the bonus.

The court held that the bonus clause was triggered because the purchaser achieved the zoning it desired and urged upon the OMB, which constituted a 'favourable decision' on the appeal.

The applicant tenants sought a mandatory order requiring the respondent landlord to consent to a change in the operating name of their restaurant.

The landlord had refused consent, citing alleged prior breaches of the lease regarding unauthorized renovations.

The court applied the principles for determining whether a landlord has unreasonably withheld consent, finding that the landlord's concerns about past breaches were being addressed in a separate proceeding and did not justify refusing a simple name change.

The court held the refusal was unreasonable and granted the application, permitting the name change.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion under Rule 5.04 to add a newly incorporated company as a defendant, alleging it received assets, business opportunities, and benefits through fraudulent conveyances after the tenant abandoned leased premises.

The proposed defendant argued that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the presumption of discovery under s. 5(2) was rebutted because the proposed defendant corporation did not exist at the time of the underlying events.

Given uncertainty regarding when transfers occurred and when the plaintiff could reasonably have discovered the claim, the court found a triable issue of discoverability.

Leave was therefore granted to add the corporation as a defendant with permission to plead a limitations defence.