3 total
The court awarded the successful respondents $11,500 in partial indemnity costs following the dismissal of the appeal.
This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the parties’ written submissions on costs.
The respondents sought full recovery of $19,300.40, citing the appeal as unnecessary and the appellant’s arguments as unrelated to the application judge’s reasoning.
The appellant submitted that $5,000 would be reasonable and proportionate, noting their own bill of costs was $15,171.20.
The court found no basis for an elevated costs award but determined the appellant’s suggested amount was too low.
The respondents were awarded $11,500, all-inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis.
The court dismissed the appeal, confirming that a lawyer approval condition does not require disclosure of reasons or waive solicitor-client privilege.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Sa Yan and Royal LePage Signature Realty regarding the return of a $60,000 deposit following the termination of an assignment of an agreement of purchase and sale.
The court upheld the application judge’s finding that the respondents, Christine Yui and Michelle Yui, properly exercised a lawyer approval condition to terminate the agreement and were entitled to the return of their deposit.
The court also declined to vary the order to include pre- and post-judgment interest, as the respondents had not brought a cross-appeal.
Eviction order set aside and new hearing ordered due to Board's denial of natural justice.
The appellants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting them as unauthorized occupants.
The Divisional Court found that the Board denied the appellants natural justice by refusing to consider their position that they resided on the premises based on an agreement with the landlord, not as tenants or unauthorized occupants.
The Board erred in law by ordering their eviction without any evidentiary basis under section 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.