3 total
A real estate brokerage successfully sued a landlord for an unpaid leasing commission after a commercial lease was finalized with an after-acquired affiliate of the original prospective tenant.
The plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, sued the defendant for breach of contract for an unpaid leasing commission on a commercial property.
The core issues involved whether an Offer to Lease was terminated, whether a subsequent lease with a Loblaw affiliate (Shoppers Drug Mart) fulfilled the commission agreement's conditions, and the interpretation of the "Tenant" definition to include after-acquired affiliates.
The court found that the Offer to Lease was not terminated, the Shoppers Lease substantially fulfilled the conditions, and the definition of "Tenant" objectively included entities that became Loblaw affiliates within the specified 24-month period.
The plaintiff was awarded the commission, but interest was limited to 5% per annum due to a violation of the Interest Act.
Substantial indemnity costs awarded due to respondent's unfounded allegations and abuse of process.
The plaintiffs and the Trustee/Receiver sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-motion.
The court found that the respondent's conduct, which included an attempt to circumvent a settlement release and making serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the Trustee/Receiver and opposing counsel, constituted an abuse of process.
Applying the principle that reprehensible or outrageous conduct warrants elevated costs, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs.
The plaintiffs were awarded $35,668.06 and the Trustee/Receiver was awarded $14,197.79.
Claim in bankruptcy barred by prior settlement release binding related corporate entities.
The plaintiffs moved to bar a claim filed by Trendi Dezign Incorporated in the bankruptcy of the Kaptor Group, arguing it was released under a prior Settlement Agreement.
The court found that Trendi was a 'related person' to the settling defendants under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Business Corporations Act, and was therefore bound by the broad release.
The defendant's cross-motion to examine the receiver was dismissed as a fishing expedition not for the general benefit of creditors.
