James Patrick McReynolds

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent tenant damages for overpayment of rent, common area maintenance (CAM) charges, and the cost of replacing a roof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the commercial lease.

The court upheld the findings that the lease unambiguously required the landlord to replace the roof, that the tenant's calculation of additional rent during renewal periods was correct, and that the landlord's claim for historical CAM charges was statute-barred because a party cannot indefinitely toll a limitation period by delaying the issuance of invoices.

This costs endorsement arises from a failed real estate transaction that proceeded to a two-day summary trial under the simplified procedure.

The plaintiff, Anthony Gyimah, sought rescission and damages after the transaction with the Church failed to close due to a dispute over key delivery.

The Church counterclaimed for specific performance or damages.

The court found both parties partially successful but awarded the plaintiff the majority of his claim, with a small damages award to the Church.

The court considered the conduct of both parties in determining costs, ultimately awarding the plaintiff partial indemnity costs against the Church, and substantial indemnity costs to Mr. Lehoux, but in a reduced amount.

The court also addressed the appropriate rate and period for prejudgment interest.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture after its lease was terminated for nonpayment of rent.

The court found that the landlord did not waive its right to terminate the lease, as any waiver required written confirmation, which was absent.

The tenant was in substantial arrears and failed to pay rent for several months.

The court also found that the landlord did not breach the lease by failing to provide notice, as the lease allowed termination for nonpayment after 15 days without notice.

The application for relief from forfeiture was dismissed, as the tenant delayed bringing the application, the lease was about to expire, and a new tenant had already occupied the premises.

The decision concerns a failed real estate transaction in which the plaintiff, Anthony Gyimah, sought rescission and damages after refusing to close on a property purchase due to a dispute over the delivery of keys.

The court found that the plaintiff breached the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) by refusing to close, as the keys were made available for pickup in Cochrane and there was no contractual requirement for delivery to Toronto.

The court awarded the defendant Church damages of $219.61 and ordered repayment to the plaintiff of the balance of funds held in trust, with interest earned, totaling $70,142.23.

The case against the Church’s lawyer, Andre Lehoux, was dismissed.

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.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the settlement of an application to assess a legal account.

The Applicant had made an Offer to Settle in February 2020, which the Respondent purported to accept in June 2024, after having already consented to the assessment in May 2024.

The court found that the Offer to Settle did not explicitly provide for the disposition of costs, thus entitling the Applicant to costs under Rule 49.07(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the Applicant's claim for over $8,000, the court deemed this excessive and disproportionate, ultimately awarding the Applicant $4,000 in partial indemnity costs, to be set off against any amount the Applicant might owe the Respondent after the assessment.

The court criticized the Respondent's unreasonable delay in consenting to the assessment.

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.

This decision concerns a motion for costs brought by the defendants, Alexander Gerstein and Ethan Gerstein (the "Moving Defendants"), after the plaintiffs discontinued their action and agreed to vacate a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the Moving Defendants' property.

The Moving Defendants sought full indemnity costs, alleging egregious conduct by the plaintiffs, including material misrepresentations and omissions when obtaining the ex parte CPL, unfounded fraud allegations, and uncooperative conduct during the motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' numerous and significant failures to make full and fair disclosure, coupled with their belated and uncooperative conduct, amounted to a material misrepresentation.

The court awarded full indemnity costs of $115,000 to the Moving Defendants, finding the plaintiffs' conduct sufficiently egregious and reprehensible.

The bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The trustee opposed the discharge under s. 173(1)(o) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, arguing the bankrupt failed to perform his duties by not disclosing and assisting in the realization of a 47-foot yacht.

The court found the bankrupt was evasive, uncooperative, and failed to fulfill his duties to disclose and deliver the yacht to the trustee.

Given the bankrupt's conduct and the need to maintain the integrity of the bankruptcy system, the court refused an absolute discharge and instead granted a conditional discharge requiring the bankrupt to pay $40,000 to the estate over 60 months.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in the Superior Court for injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from dealing with a property, pending a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court declined jurisdiction, finding that the Court of Appeal, under section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, was the proper forum to hear motions for interim relief pending an appeal or leave to appeal.

The Superior Court emphasized that the appellate court is in the best position to determine the merits of the underlying appeal, which is a key factor in granting interim relief.

The motion was therefore transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to return possession of a luxury rental home to the tenants.

The landlords had changed the locks and moved back into the home after discovering the tenants were residing in Dubai, arguing the tenancy was no longer residential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction despite parallel Superior Court proceedings, the Board application was not an abuse of process, and the Board correctly interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act.

Crucially, the Court held that the term 'vacant' in s. 31(3) of the Act must be interpreted to exclude situations where a landlord illegally terminates a tenancy and moves into the unit, allowing the Board to restore possession to the wrongfully evicted tenants.

Two siblings, acting as co-Estate Trustees for their late father's estate, engaged in extensive litigation against each other, paralyzing the estate's administration.

The brother brought a motion to remove his sister as co-Estate Trustee and to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The sister brought a cross-motion to strike the brother's counterclaim regarding the ownership of a corporate asset, arguing it was statute-barred.

The court declined to remove the sister as trustee on a paper record but appointed an ETDL due to the severe conflict of interest and hostility between the siblings.

The motion to strike the counterclaim was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding discoverability and the nature of the declaratory relief sought.

The proposed intervener, Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO), brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning an alleged illegal eviction.

The landlords opposed the motion, arguing it was a private dispute.

The court granted the motion, finding that ACTO had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the subject matter and could provide a useful and distinct perspective on the interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act, particularly regarding the remedies available for illegal evictions.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the corporate defendant and its director shortly after the director made an assignment in bankruptcy.

Years later, after the trustee was discharged but the director remained an undischarged bankrupt, the plaintiff obtained default judgment against the director without notice.

The court held that commencing the action during the bankruptcy stay was a curable irregularity, not a nullity, and the stay lifted when the trustee was discharged.

However, the court set aside the default judgment because the plaintiff failed to serve the motion materials on the director before she was noted in default, contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The director was ordered to attend an examination in aid of execution on behalf of the corporate defendant only.

In a commercial lease dispute involving allegations of rent overpayment and underpayment, both the plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering both parties to answer certain questions and produce specific financial and lease-related documents, while dismissing requests that were overbroad or disproportionate.

The tenants brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that required the landlords to return possession of the rental unit.

The landlords had previously exercised self-help to evict the tenants while they were out of the country.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to lift the stay, finding the tenants failed to demonstrate unusual hardship as they were residing in Dubai and had no firm plans to return.

The court also dismissed the tenants' alternative requests for an interlocutory injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.14 for an extension of time to set the action down for trial.

The action arose from a 2014-2015 sub-tenancy dispute.

The case had stalled since early 2017 because the plaintiff failed to answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court found the plaintiff's explanations for the delay—including the death of a principal, counsel's injury, and the COVID-19 pandemic—to be vague and unsatisfactory given the length of inactivity.

Presuming prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of time, the court dismissed the motion and dismissed the action for delay.

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.

The plaintiffs, residential tenants of a luxury property, sought an interim injunction to regain possession after the defendant landlords unilaterally terminated the tenancy, changed the locks, and moved back in.

The plaintiffs had been absent from the property since December 2020 due to the pandemic.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm as the corporate plaintiff could operate elsewhere and the individual plaintiff remained abroad.

The balance of convenience favoured the landlords, who could better maintain the property pending resolution of the disputes before the Landlord and Tenant Board.