Jayson Thomas

Following the dismissal of an urgent injunction application regarding a commercial tenancy, the respondent landlord sought costs against the applicant tenant and two of its non-party shareholders personally.

The court found that the 'person of straw' test was not met, as the applicant was the proper party to the lease dispute.

However, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process, finding that the two shareholders engaged in gross misconduct by authorizing and funding the litigation while withholding funds from the insolvent applicant, thereby depriving it of the ability to pay rent or a costs award.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $29,405, payable jointly and severally by the applicant and the two shareholders.

The Applicant, Simcoe Drug Mart Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory mandatory injunction to reinstate its lease for a pharmacy premises after the Respondent, Simcoe Medical Clinic Inc. (SMCI), terminated it due to non-payment of rent and re-leased it to a third party.

The court denied the injunction, finding no serious issue to be tried as the Applicant's key hearsay evidence regarding an alleged scheme was struck, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate "clean hands" by retaining funds belonging to the pharmacy.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favored the Respondent and the new tenant, given the Applicant's financial instability and the public interest in a stable pharmacy.

This endorsement addresses the costs following a judgment where the Applicant, Looking Glass Group Ltd., was awarded damages for breach of contract.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis or, alternatively, on a partial indemnity basis.

The Respondent acknowledged liability for costs but argued for a lower amount.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the Respondent.

Instead, the court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $48,406.42, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the Respondent's weak arguments and lowball settlement offers, which unnecessarily increased litigation expenses and impeded access to justice.

The applicant, Looking Glass Group Ltd. (LGG), sought payment under a marketing agreement with its former customer, TidySquares Limited, for commissions and minimum payments.

The agreement stipulated minimum payments if TidySquares intentionally failed to supply inventory, unless due to force majeure.

TidySquares ceased supplying inventory, arguing force majeure due to manufacturer issues and that LGG waived its rights, and that the minimum payment clause was an unenforceable penalty.

The court found TidySquares intentionally stopped supplying inventory due to a change in business model, rejected the force majeure and waiver arguments, and upheld the minimum payments clause as a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

This motion concerned applications by the Dallas Defendants and Mangal Defendants to withdraw deemed admissions arising from their failure to respond to a Request to Admit from the Plaintiffs.

The court applied a three-part test, considering whether the proposed amendments raised a triable issue, if the admission was inadvertent, and if withdrawal would cause uncompensable prejudice.

The court found that the moving parties failed to establish a triable issue regarding property valuation, notice of power of sale, or Ms. Dallas's authority.

While counsel claimed inadvertence, the delay in bringing the motion after being alerted to the issue was unexplained.

Significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, including delays and costs, was identified.

The court also noted the moving parties' inconsistent positions on property valuation in a related proceeding.

Considering all circumstances, the motions to withdraw deemed admissions were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs under Rule 56.01.

The court found that the plaintiff Alexandra Tang was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and that the plaintiffs (including the corporations) lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential cost award.

However, the motion was dismissed due to the defendants' obstructive conduct during cross-examinations regarding the merits of the claim, their "hardball litigation" tactics, and significant delay in bringing the motion.

The court emphasized that the merits of the claim are relevant, especially when impecuniosity is not alleged, and that the defendants' conduct prejudiced the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate their case's merits.

The moving party (guarantor) sought an extension of time to appeal a partial summary judgment of $1.8 million.

The motion judge's endorsement was not received by the parties for over 18 months.

The court granted a brief extension, finding that the guarantor demonstrated an intention to appeal within 30 days of receiving the endorsement, the delay was relatively brief and partly attributable to the court's delay and the lender's conduct, and despite remote chances of success on appeal, the interests of justice favored granting the extension given the unusual circumstances of the endorsement's late release.

The plaintiff, Sabrina Homes Inc. (Buyer), brought a motion for leave to register Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction against properties owned by the defendants (Seller).

The court dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate issues previously determined by Justice Ramsay.

Alternatively, the court found the Buyer failed to satisfy the test for a CPL, specifically regarding the uniqueness of the property and the adequacy of damages as a remedy.

The balance of harm favored the Seller, who faced potential breach of contract and foreclosure if the CPL was granted.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Seller.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statements of claim in two actions without leave to amend.

The claims arose from a failed transaction for the purchase of dental practices and sought a total of $90 million in damages against various professional advisors, family members, and employers of the intended purchasers.

The court found the pleadings to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting they were replete with irrelevant historical facts, inappropriate definitions, and inflammatory allegations.

The court concluded the actions were commenced for the improper purpose of harassing the defendants and struck the claims without leave to amend, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The applicant sought equitable relief from forfeiture after being locked out of commercial leased premises due to multiple breaches of the lease, including non-payment of basic rent, unauthorized subletting, and failure to open the specified restaurant business for nearly three years.

The court, applying the principles of relief from forfeiture, found that while the applicant had cured rent arrears, the prolonged failure to open the restaurant and lack of sufficient evidence for delays were significant.

The court granted relief from forfeiture but imposed stringent conditions on the applicant, requiring timely rent payments, provision of post-dated cheques, and payment of a substantial sum for outstanding reality taxes, with a clear stipulation that non-compliance would allow the respondents to terminate the lease.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims under Rule 21, which was largely dismissed, with the plaintiffs achieving substantial success.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $6,928.39 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found the requested amount modest given the complexity and importance of the motion.

However, because the plaintiffs were not entirely successful, the court discounted the requested amount by $1,000 to reflect the partial success.

The defendants were ordered to pay costs of $5,900 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving parties (defendants/purchasers) brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' (builders) statement of claim in its entirety.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants filed over 800 specious complaints with Tarion, causing damage to their business reputation and economic relations.

The court dismissed the motion for the most part, finding the claims for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract were adequately pleaded.

However, the court struck the claim for 'denial of access/statutory breach' as it does not constitute an independently actionable wrong.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of a property in Iran.

The defendant argued that payment was conditional on clearing a cloud on title and, alternatively, that the claim was statute-barred.

The court found no evidence of the alleged condition and held that the limitation period was extended under s. 11 of the Limitations Act because the parties had engaged a third party (the Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly) to assist in resolving the dispute.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the balance owing, converted to Canadian dollars on specific dates.

Dean's Standard Inc. ("Dean's") brought a construction lien claim against Siljub Toronto Ltd. ("Siljub") for renovation services provided to a hotel room.

Dean's alleged an oral contract with individuals (Mr. O and Mr. Marchuk) who represented themselves as purchasers of the hotel, arguing they had apparent authority or that Siljub ratified the contract.

The court found no actual, apparent, or ostensible authority for Mr. O and Mr. Marchuk to bind Siljub, nor any ratification by Siljub.

The court also noted Dean's failure to name the actual contracting parties (Mr. O and Mr. Marchuk) as defendants.

Dean's request to amend its pleading to add unjust enrichment was denied due to prejudice and the expeditious nature of Construction Lien Act claims.

The claim was dismissed, and the construction lien discharged.

The plaintiff, Gladys Levy, sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully prosecuting her claim for $21,183.20 and successfully defending a counterclaim for $310,000.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $55,837.02, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to the plaintiff.

This decision was based on the defendant Sylvie Levy's reprehensible and inappropriate conduct throughout the 24-day trial, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, included courtroom outbursts, arguments with the court, and denial of facts that should have been admitted.

An addendum dated August 10, 2016, clarified that a $5,000 award for an earlier application was included in the total costs.

The plaintiff brought an action against her sister for unpaid loans related to the purchase and maintenance of a residential property held in trust.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff breached the Trust Agreement and her fiduciary duties.

The court found that the plaintiff had advanced loans to the defendant which remained unpaid, and that the plaintiff did not breach the Trust Agreement.

The plaintiff's claim was granted in the amount of $21,183.20, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement granting him a 10% equity interest in a startup company in exchange for his work.

In the alternative, he claimed oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act arising from his termination and the denial of equity.

The court found that no binding oral contract had been formed, emphasizing the absence of contemporaneous documentation and the lack of objective evidence of mutual intention to create legal relations.

The plaintiff therefore failed to establish offer, acceptance, and enforceable agreement.

The court also rejected the oppression claim, holding that the plaintiff was not a shareholder, officer, or director and had no reasonable expectation of equity.