Jennifer Vrancic

Costs decision following the landlord's successful motion to stay the tenant's application for injunctive relief and relief from forfeiture pending arbitration.

The landlord sought partial indemnity costs of $20,183.47.

The tenant argued the costs were excessive, disproportionate, and should be reserved to the arbitrator.

The court declined to reserve costs, finding it controls costs of proceedings before it and the arbitration clause might not empower the arbitrator to award such costs.

The court reduced the hours claimed due to duplicative work by three lawyers and disallowed the articling student's attendance costs, awarding $13,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

A commercial tenant operating a bar and nightclub sought an urgent application for an interim and permanent injunction to prevent termination of its tenancy and to obtain relief from forfeiture.

The landlord moved to stay the application, arguing that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration.

The court found that the dispute fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the lease and granted the landlord's motion to stay the application.

The court declined to grant interim injunctive relief or relief from forfeiture, finding that the alleged breaches—permitting armed individuals to enter the premises leading to a shooting incident and operating an unlicensed adult entertainment facility—were very serious in nature and that the landlord's interests could not be fully vindicated without resort to forfeiture.

The applicants sought a court order to rectify the land register under s. 57(13) of the Land Titles Act, declaring a mortgage on their home void and fraudulent due to forged signatures.

The respondents, Ryan Mortgage Income Fund Inc. and the Director of Titles, did not oppose the application.

The court found the mortgage to be a fraudulent instrument and granted the order, directing rectification.

The judge criticized the respondents for requiring the applicants to bring an unnecessary proceeding, causing significant delay and cost, when the respondents could have acted themselves.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of residential property.

The defendants admitted liability, with the dispute centering on the assessment of damages and the plaintiffs' duty to mitigate.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs took reasonable steps to mitigate their loss by promptly re-listing and selling the property, and that the resale price was a valid measure of market value.

The court awarded damages for the difference between the original contract price and the resale price, plus approved ancillary expenses, crediting the deposit against the total judgment.

This motion concerned the enforcement of a settlement agreement reached between neighbouring property owners regarding a land boundary dispute.

The applicants sought an order vesting title of the disputed lands in their names, as per the agreement.

The respondents attempted to introduce new terms after the agreement was confirmed and part performance had occurred.

The court found a binding settlement agreement existed, supported by clarifying emails and part performance (survey work and iron bar placement), which also took the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds requirement for written contracts concerning land.

The motion was granted, enforcing the original settlement terms.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action for damages, including assault, against the respondent, which was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued that her claim was not discovered earlier due to fear (s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002) or that it fell under the exception for assault in an intimate relationship (s. 16(1)(h.2)(i)).

The motion judge found no evidence of "assault" meeting the "imminent" contact standard and deemed the fear evidence unpersuasive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, affirming the strict definition of assault requiring "imminent" harm, consistent with its prior ruling in Barker v. Barker.

The appellant, Casey Zizek, appealed the dismissal of a motion to stay proceedings.

The underlying action involved an alleged fraud by the defendants against the respondent school board.

The school board had settled with other defendants via a Mary Carter or Pierringer agreement but failed to immediately disclose this to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by not applying the principle that immediate disclosure of such agreements is mandatory and that failure to do so constitutes an abuse of process, regardless of prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, and the proceeding was stayed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from an alleged campaign of harassment following the end of their romantic relationship.

The plaintiff argued her claim was saved from the basic two-year limitation period by section 16(1)(h.2)(i) of the Limitations Act, which removes the limitation period for assault if the parties had an intimate relationship.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had reasonable grounds to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact.

As the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction requiring the respondent to remove a fence and trees obstructing an access road to their waterfront property.

The respondent argued the road was not an 'access road' under the Road Access Act because alternate access existed.

The court found the limited, conditional access over a neighbour's property did not constitute alternate access.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm due to the loss of vehicular access, and a balance of convenience favouring the applicants.

The tenant brought an application against the landlord for a declaration that a notice of termination was void, an accounting of distrained assets, and the release of seized property.

The landlord had re-entered the commercial premises after issuing a notice of default for rent arrears, but did so before the notice period stipulated in the lease had expired.

The court found the re-entry and termination unlawful, as the parties had contracted out of the statutory 15-day default period in favour of a specific notice period.

The court ordered the landlord to release the tenant's property and directed a trial of an issue to determine the tenant's damages.

Following a trial where the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was found not liable for a streetcar accident involving a four-year-old child, the TTC sought its costs of the proceeding.

The court declined to award costs to the TTC, noting that the child could not be at fault and that the TTC, as a public service, should bear the costs of defending such claims where the injured party is not at fault.

The court also declined to award costs for the TTC's counterclaim against the child's parents, resulting in no order as to costs for any party.