Josh Suttner

The respondents, who were largely successful in defending a shareholder oppression application, sought costs including substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle.

The court found that the offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences because it omitted the applicant's statutory right to audited financial statements, an issue on which the applicant was successful.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs, reduced by 25% to reflect the applicant's partial success, fixing costs at $75,000.

Following a judgment granting the applicant tenant a declaration of unlawful lease termination and restoring possession, the tenant sought costs of up to $24,637.91 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the tenant's limited success on its arguments, and the reasonable settlement offers made by the landlord.

Finding that Rule 49 cost consequences were not appropriate, the court fixed costs payable to the tenant at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant commercial tenant brought an urgent application to recover possession of leased premises after being locked out by the respondent landlord for non-payment of a security deposit.

The parties had orally agreed to an installment plan for the deposit, but the tenant missed the first payment.

The landlord issued a notice of default and terminated the lease shortly after.

The court found that while there was an oral agreement for installments, there was no agreement to waive the five-business-day notice period required by the lease for default of Additional Rent.

Therefore, the termination was premature and unlawful.

The court ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant, conditional on payment of the deposit and rent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to claim a $100,000 deposit after the defendant purchasers failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants had submitted an unconditional offer but failed to close due to financing issues, and subsequently attempted to cloud the title to prevent resale.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the deposit was a true deposit subject to forfeiture.

The court rejected the defendants' claim for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit amount proportionate and no unconscionability in the plaintiffs retaining it.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking declarations of share ownership, directorship, invalidity of mortgages, and financial disclosure in a dispute over the sale of a hotel.

The defendants opposed, arguing a trial was necessary due to significant credibility issues and the inappropriateness of partial summary judgment, and also brought their own cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning witness credibility and the inability to readily bifurcate liability from remedy without risking inefficient duplication or inconsistent findings.