Jennifer J. Lake

The City of Mississauga brought a motion for interim statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain respondents from contravening the City's Nuisance Gathering By-law 0211-2023.

The motion concerned unsanctioned large-scale gatherings at Ridgeway Plaza scheduled for August 13-14 and 19, 2025, coinciding with Pakistan Independence Day and Afghanistan Independence Day celebrations.

The court granted an interim quia timet injunction against all respondents but declined to grant a statutory injunction against the condominium corporations, finding they were not engaged in ongoing by-law contraventions.

The court balanced the serious public safety risks from overcrowding against Charter rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The court dismissed the defendants’ motion for security for costs against Icon Wheelchairs Canada, finding that the delay in bringing the motion and the arguable merits of the plaintiff’s claims made such an order unjust.

The court also fixed costs for the discontinued action by Icon Wheelchairs Inc., but stayed payment pending the outcome of the defendants’ counterclaim.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the legal framework for security for costs, the impact of delay, and the assessment of the merits of the underlying claims.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., and the defendants, Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp., sought costs following a trial.

ID Inc. was awarded damages against TWPA and sought partial indemnity costs for the trial and substantial indemnity costs for an interest motion.

StrategyCorp., whose claim was dismissed, sought full indemnity costs against ID Inc. The court awarded ID Inc. partial indemnity costs of $641,891.66 against TWPA, with reductions for certain disbursements and a 15% reduction for divided success on issues.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs for the interest motion, awarding partial indemnity instead, with further reductions for excessive time and unnecessary attendance.

StrategyCorp. was awarded partial indemnity costs of $665,354.31 against ID Inc., with reductions for time spent on an unscheduled summary judgment motion and a separate OIC complaint.

The court declined to award costs against ID Inc.'s principal personally or to direct TWPA's payment to ID Inc. to first satisfy StrategyCorp.'s costs.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sought pre- and post-judgment interest at a contractual rate of 26.8% per annum following a successful breach of contract claim against Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA).

The court had previously awarded damages for lost profits and maintenance.

The key issues were whether ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate without amending its pleading, and if an amendment was necessary, whether leave should be granted.

The court found that ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate under common law, as the parties had agreed to and contemplated this rate in their Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA), and the TWPA was not prejudiced despite the delay in formally pleading it.

The court awarded ID Inc. pre- and post-judgment interest at 26.8% on the total damages.

The parties entered into Agreements of Purchase and Sale where the applicants sold two apartment buildings to the respondent developer in exchange for cash and 100 rental units in the new condominium development.

The City of Toronto required a Section 111 Agreement imposing additional amenities and a shared entrance not contemplated in the original agreements.

The developer sought to have the applicants pay a proportionate share of the increased maintenance costs, control the leasing of the rental units, and retain interim rents before title transfer.

The court held that the applicants were only required to pay for amenities uniquely dedicated to the rental units or originally contemplated, that the applicants had the right to control leasing, and that the applicants were entitled to interim rents, as this aligned with the reasonable expectations of the parties and the commercial efficacy of the agreements.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce a settlement agreement reached in a mortgage enforcement action.

The parties had agreed to all essential terms, including a payment of $725,000 by the defendant, but the defendant and her father subsequently failed to sign the finalized documents.

The court found the settlement clear, unambiguous, and not unconscionable, and granted the motion to enforce the settlement with costs.

The appellants failed to appear for their scheduled appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, despite attempts by the court and respondent's counsel to contact them.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Pomata Investment Corp., sought summary judgment against the defendant, Yanhua Shi, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a residential property.

The defendant argued misrepresentation and lack of duty of care by the plaintiff's agent, and challenged the damages calculation and mitigation efforts.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding liability, rejecting the non est factum defence and the alleged duty of care.

The court also found the plaintiff's mitigation efforts reasonable and the damages calculation valid.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the claimed damages plus interest and costs.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers for anticipatory breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a pre-construction residential property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, alleging an oral agreement that the property would be assigned prior to closing for a profit.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendants failed to provide evidence of the alleged oral agreement or misrepresentations by the plaintiff's agent.

The court also found the plaintiff reasonably mitigated its damages by reselling the property.

Summary judgment was granted, the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed, and a stay of execution pending a third-party claim was denied.

The applicants moved to hold the respondent, a former condominium board president, in contempt of court for failing to comply with a consent order.

The respondent had agreed to resign, turn over corporate email access, and swear a statutory declaration regarding corporate funds, but failed to do so timely or truthfully.

The court declined to make a contempt finding, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court enforced the consent order's liquidated damages clause of $125,000 for non-compliance and vested the respondent's interest in the corporate email account in the condominium corporation.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breaching an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new build home.

The purchaser failed to close the transaction, alleging confusion and forgery regarding documents amending the purchase price to include selected upgrades.

The court found a valid and binding contract existed, which the purchaser breached.

The court also found the vendor reasonably mitigated its damages by reselling the property, and awarded damages to the vendor for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, net of the purchaser's forfeited deposit.

The parties made written submissions regarding the form of the Order following a judgment on an appeal and a costs endorsement.

The self-represented respondents approved the form of the Order but raised other concerns, including a schedule for the payment of costs.

The court found that the respondents' concerns did not relate to the form or content of the Order and signed the Order as drafted by the appellant, adding a provision that it is enforceable without formal entry.

The plaintiff, Eyelet Investment Corp., sought a court declaration that an arbitration initiated by the defendants (purchasers of residential properties) was invalid, arguing that the vendors had not participated in the arbitration process.

The defendants had initiated arbitration claiming termination of agreements of purchase and sale due to Eyelet's alleged failure to provide notice of non-waivable early termination conditions (ETCs) under the Tarion addendum, seeking a refund of deposits.

The court considered whether the arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and whether to defer to the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The court found that the arbitration agreement applied broadly to the dispute, including related tort claims, and affirmed the principle of competence-competence, deferring the matter to arbitration.

Advantage Engineering Inc. sued Polaris Industries Inc. for breach of a Master Supply Agreement and unjust enrichment.

Polaris moved to dismiss or stay the action and refer the dispute to arbitration in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as per an arbitration clause in the agreement.

Advantage argued the agreement was nullified by breach, its claims were outside the agreement, the clause was inoperative due to a key witness's inability to travel, and Polaris's delay.

The court found the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, applying the competence-competence principle.

The court dismissed Advantage's arguments, including the claim that the witness's travel restrictions rendered the clause inoperative, and granted Polaris's motion, staying the action and referring the dispute to arbitration.

The plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial properties for $36,000,000.

The agreement was conditional on the plaintiff obtaining approval to assume existing mortgages on terms satisfactory to the buyer in its 'sole and absolute discretion.' The plaintiff was unable to secure satisfactory terms from the mortgagees, declared the agreement null and void, and sought the return of its $2,000,000 deposit.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff made a bona fide effort to complete the transaction and that the defendants' interpretation would render the 'sole and absolute discretion' clause meaningless.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, ordering the return of the deposit plus costs.