John Sestito

The plaintiff, My Lucky Spot, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a roofing contract.

The defendants received a significant deposit but failed to perform any work and were noted in default.

The court applied the test for default judgment, finding that the deemed admissions from the Statement of Claim established liability for all defendants, including personal liability for David Lanzilota, the directing mind, by piercing the corporate veil due to fraudulent purpose.

The court awarded damages for the lost deposit, lost revenue (limited to the amount pleaded), mitigation costs, and the increased cost of a new contract to fix the roof.

The applicant landlord brought an application for a declaration that a commercial tenancy was terminated and sought vacant possession.

The respondent tenant argued that the lease had been extended to August 2023 through either a written agreement or an oral agreement based on part performance.

The court found that the landlord had waived strict compliance with the written notice requirement for the option to renew, resulting in an automatic one-year extension.

However, the court rejected the tenant's argument for a longer extension, finding no written agreement and that the doctrine of part performance did not apply.

The court ordered the tenant to deliver vacant possession at the end of the one-year extension period.

The defendant subcontractor moved to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired and to discharge the lien.

At the time the plaintiff preserved and perfected its lien, the plaintiff corporation had been dissolved for failure to pay a fee, though it was later revived.

The court held that because the corporation was dissolved at the relevant time, it was not a legal entity entitled to preserve or perfect a lien.

The court found it had no equitable discretion to validate the lien retroactively, and even if it did, it would not exercise it in these circumstances.

The motion was granted, the lien discharged, and the security ordered returned.

The parties settled a commercial tenancy dispute prior to the hearing of their application and cross-application.

However, the court issued an endorsement to address a false statement made by the applicant in a sworn affidavit regarding his travel to China.

After receiving an explanation that the applicant had indeed travelled to China but on a different airline and date than sworn, the court declined to pursue a contempt hearing.

The court cautioned that false statements in affidavits are taken seriously and could preclude equitable remedies such as relief against forfeiture.

The moving party, an appliance supplier, sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against a condominium unit owned by the responding parties.

The moving party alleged it was owed $155,000 for appliances supplied to a previous project and had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for the unit as security for the debt.

The responding parties argued the agreement prohibited the registration of a certificate of pending litigation.

The court granted the motion, finding that the potential harm to the moving party outweighed the harm to the responding parties, the responding parties' corporations were likely to become shell companies, and the responding parties were estopped from relying on the non-registration clause due to their own default.

The plaintiff, Alberto Becerra, sought leave to issue a fresh as amended statement of claim in a construction lien action, aiming to increase the claim quantum, add new grounds of recovery including unjust enrichment, punitive damages, and claims related to an unrelated prior project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that leave ought not be granted as the motion was neither necessary nor would it expedite the resolution of the issues, as required by the Construction Lien Act.

Furthermore, even on the merits, the proposed amendments were largely statute-barred under the Limitations Act, constituted improper joinder of unrelated claims, or attempted to join a breach of trust claim, which is precluded by the Construction Lien Act.