Jennifer Ng

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to recover arrears of rent from the defendant commercial tenant.

The tenant argued it was relieved of its obligation to pay rent because the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting government restrictions triggered the lease's force majeure clause or frustrated the contract.

The court found that while the government restrictions triggered the force majeure clause, the clause explicitly did not excuse the tenant from paying rent.

The court also held that the doctrine of frustration did not apply because the lease did not require the tenant to operate a retail store, the disruptions were temporary, and the force majeure clause demonstrated the parties had contemplated such circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the landlord.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment after the defendants misappropriated $325,000 in investment funds and failed to defend the action.

The defendants, acting as financial advisors, repeatedly evaded requests to return the funds and provided fabricated portfolio reports.

The court granted judgment for the represented portfolio value of $345,071.45, continued a Mareva injunction, and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages due to the defendants' deceitful and callous conduct.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, who commenced the action while residing in Ontario, were subsequently posted to Colorado due to the husband's military service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' move was not a free choice to avoid a costs order, and they retained exigible assets in Ontario, including an RRSP and federal wages.

The court also found the action was not frivolous or vexatious.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that a first promissory note, which required repayment of a loan upon the deceased's death, was valid and enforceable, rather than a second note that forgave the loan.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting witness testimony and finding an email purportedly from the deceased was not sent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding that the proposed fresh evidence regarding the email did not meet the test for admission and would not have changed the outcome.

Kenaidan Contracting Limited and Bouygues Building Canada Inc. (BKJV) brought a motion for security for costs against Lancaster Group Inc. in a construction lien action.

The court granted leave for the motion under section 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act, finding that BKJV had demonstrated indicia of instability regarding Lancaster's financial health, supported by an Equifax report.

Lancaster failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of sufficient appropriate assets to satisfy an adverse costs order, as its claimed assets were either held by a separate, related entity or encumbered by secured creditors.

Considering the overall justice of the case, including the absence of an impecuniosity claim by Lancaster and the "soft" nature of BKJV's counterclaim, the court ordered Lancaster to pay $60,000 into court as security for costs up to the end of oral discoveries, with the possibility of further security for later stages.

The plaintiff, Kenaidan Contracting Ltd., brought a defamation claim against Lancaster Group Inc. and its officers for statements made in an open letter to the City of Hamilton and subsequent media interviews regarding alleged mismanagement of a Pan Am Games construction project and unpaid invoices.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the defamation claim.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit, the defendants successfully demonstrated valid defences of justification and fair comment regarding the alleged mismanagement and outstanding payments.

The court also found that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression, especially considering the plaintiff's prior self-inflicted reputational damage and the nature of the allegations.

The motion to dismiss the defamation proceedings was granted.