John A. Annen

The applicants, a commercial tenant and its owner, sought relief from forfeiture after being evicted by their landlord.

The tenant argued that a new ten-year lease had been agreed upon in 2019 and that COVID-19 legislation prevented the eviction.

The court found that no new lease was formed, the tenancy was month-to-month, and the COVID-19 protections only applied to evictions for rent arrears, not expired leases.

The application was dismissed because relief from forfeiture is not available for the termination of a month-to-month tenancy.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion to oppose confirmation of an assessment officer's certificate, which ordered him to refund $13,308.55 to his former clients.

The clients had retained the lawyer under a block fee agreement but terminated the retainer before trial.

The assessment officer reduced the lawyer's final account and deducted the full amount of the original retainer paid.

The court found no procedural unfairness in the assessment hearing but held that the assessment officer erred in principle by applying the full original retainer against the final account, as an earlier interim account had not been referred for assessment.

The court substituted an order requiring the lawyer to refund $6,947.04.

The moving party, a women's shelter, brought a motion to strike the responding party's negligence claim on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The deceased was sexually assaulted on the shelter's premises by a third party and later murdered in an unrelated incident.

The court held that the recent amendments to the Limitations Act, 2002, which eliminated limitation periods for proceedings based on sexual assault, applied to negligence claims against third parties who owed a duty of care to the victim.

The court found sufficient proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the motion to strike.

Following a successful summary judgment application dismissing claims against condominium owners in a wrongful death action, the moving parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The estate had alleged the owners owed duties as landlords or occupiers relating to a fatal fall from a balcony, but evidence established that the owners were not present and had no interaction with the deceased.

Prior to the hearing, the moving parties had delivered a formal offer to waive costs if the action was discontinued against them, which the estate declined.

The court held that the estate continued to pursue liability despite information indicating the owners were not involved in the events.

Taking into account the tragic circumstances of the death, the court fixed costs in a reduced amount rather than awarding substantial indemnity.