3 total
Appeal dismissed; surviving spouse of tenant was entitled to consent to termination of tenancy.
The appellant appealed from a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order terminating his occupancy and a review order dismissing his request for reconsideration.
The appellant argued that the consent order was invalid because he was the surviving spouse of the deceased tenant and could not waive his rights to continue the tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the appellant had acquired the rights of a tenant, he was entitled to consent to the termination of the tenancy under s. 37(3) of the Act, and there was no evidence of mutual mistake, fraud, or other grounds to set aside the consent order.
An email agreement capping legal fees between a sophisticated client and counsel constitutes a valid fee agreement precluding assessment of those fees.
QA Consultants (QAC) sought to assess legal fees billed by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP (Hicks Morley).
The core dispute was whether a prior agreement, reached via email, to cap Hicks Morley's fees at $75,000 for work up to May 15, 2013, precluded assessment of that specific portion of the fees.
The court found that a valid and reasonable settlement agreement regarding the initial $75,000 in fees had been reached between QAC's managing partner and Hicks Morley's partner.
Consequently, only the fees incurred after May 15, 2013, totaling $81,029.07, were subject to assessment under the Solicitors Act.
Summary judgment refused where complex factual disputes and credibility issues required trial.
A former corporate officer brought a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims in a counterclaim alleging participation in a fraudulent kickback scheme involving commission payments under a produce distribution program.
The moving party argued the claims were unsupported by evidence and barred by the limitation period.
The court held that the dispute involved a complex factual matrix intertwined with claims proceeding to trial against other parties and required credibility determinations not suitable for summary judgment.
The court also found an issue of discoverability regarding the limitation period.
Leave was granted to amend the counterclaim to add a claim for gross negligence, as the amendment was tenable and caused no uncompensable prejudice.
