James McReynolds

Following a ten-day trial regarding a commercial lease dispute, the court issued an endorsement to finalize the calculation of damages.

The court held that the landlord's claims for unpaid common area maintenance (CAM) charges from 2009 to 2011 were statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court declined to order equitable set-off for either party, finding the tenant solely responsible for its rent overpayments and the landlord guilty of misfeasance regarding CAM charges.

The court also rejected the landlord's 'Rent Paid Theory' for recalculating rent, awarding the tenant a total of $1,359,799.88 in damages.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge after being in bankruptcy for 17 years.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee and several creditors, including the Canada Revenue Agency, on the basis of multiple facts under section 173 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had misappropriated over $9 million, spent the funds on an extravagant lifestyle, failed to account for the loss of assets, and breached his duties to report income and expenses.

The court also found the bankrupt breached the duty of good faith under section 4.2 of the BIA.

Concluding that the bankrupt was not an honest and unfortunate debtor, the court refused an absolute discharge and instead granted a conditional discharge requiring the bankrupt to pay $100,000 to the estate and fulfill all outstanding tax and reporting obligations.

The plaintiff tenant brought an action against the defendant landlord regarding a commercial lease for a grocery store.

The parties disputed the calculation of rent, responsibility for a roof replacement, and the calculation of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges.

The court found that the landlord knowingly inflated CAM invoices by charging for non-common areas, manipulating the gross leasable area, and charging unrecoverable management fees.

The court also held that the lease allocated the cost of replacing the roof to the landlord, awarding the tenant $331,746.03.

Furthermore, the court agreed with the tenant's interpretation of the rent calculation provisions and found that the tenant had overpaid rent.

The tenant was awarded $493,269.66 in restitution for unjust enrichment.

The landlord's counterclaim for unpaid rent and CAM charges was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to consolidate two Hamilton applications regarding the administration of their late father's estate with a related Toronto action.

The plaintiff and her brother, the defendant, are co-executors and sole beneficiaries of the estate, and their relationship has irrevocably broken down.

The court granted the motion, converting the applications into actions and consolidating them with the Toronto action, finding that the proceedings arise from the same series of transactions and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings.

Following a successful appeal of a Master's motion, the appellant sought costs of the proceeding below in the amount of $47,735.55 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant argued for a higher-than-usual calculation (87% of actual fees) due to the respondent's delay tactics throughout the litigation.

The court declined to use the costs award to punish the respondent for general litigation conduct, noting that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

Applying standard partial indemnity principles, the court awarded the appellant $32,500, matching the amount the parties had previously agreed was reasonable for the Master's motion.

The appellant, a second mortgagee on a matrimonial home, appealed a judgment denying its claim for additional funds and interest based on unregistered amending agreements.

The appellant argued its claim trumped that of an execution creditor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had previously admitted its security only applied to the registered principal amount and had taken an inconsistent position in a separate action.

The court also rejected the appellant's equitable mortgage argument and upheld the costs awards.

The moving defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiff insurers' claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to submit fraudulent medical treatment and assessment claims.

The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the material facts for fraudulent misrepresentation against the individual defendants, who could be held personally liable for tortious acts.

The court also declined to strike the conspiracy claims, holding that the applicability of the merger doctrine should be determined at trial and that the claims were properly based on unlawful acts under the Insurance Act and Criminal Code.

The motion was dismissed, though two plaintiffs were ordered to amend their pleadings to specify special damages for conspiracy.