Jordan Epstein

The tenant was successful on a motion for a stay pending appeal and sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The landlord argued for a lower amount.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted, as there was no deliberate attempt to frustrate proceedings by fraud or deception.

However, the landlord's failure to comply with a previous order and the introduction of unnecessary complexity were considered.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed costs payable to the tenant at $7,500 all inclusive.

The appellant landlord sought a stay of an order permitting the respondent commercial tenant to return to the leased premises pending appeal.

The landlord argued that the tenant's return would cause irreparable harm, citing alleged threats and the severe anxiety and depression of his teenage daughter.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the landlord failed to establish irreparable harm due to a lack of direct medical evidence linking the daughter's condition to the tenant's return.

The balance of convenience favored the tenant, who had been locked out for months and faced business ruin.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant landlord sought a stay of an order permitting the respondent tenant to return to the commercial premises pending appeal.

The landlord alleged irreparable harm, claiming the tenant's return caused his teenage daughter severe depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

The court found the landlord's affidavit deficient as it relied on hearsay without direct medical evidence linking the daughter's condition to the tenant's return.

Given the potential risk to the daughter's health, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the landlord to file a report from a health professional before determining the issue of irreparable harm.

The applicant commercial landlord locked the respondent tenant out of the premises, alleging breach of lease.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a rent-free agreement intended to compensate the tenant for renovations.

The court agreed with the tenant's interpretation, finding the tenant was not in default, and alternatively held that the tenant would be entitled to relief against forfeiture.

The court ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant, pay compensation for losses resulting from the lockout, and pay fixed costs.