Julia Schatz

The appellant tenant appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay over $1.1 million in alleged profits earned from a commercial sublease to the respondent landlord.

The motion judge had interpreted the lease to preclude the tenant from deducting the rent it paid for unusable open-air space on the sublet floor, and found the claim was governed by the 6-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's interpretation ignored the factual matrix and resulted in a commercial absurdity.

The tenant was entitled to deduct the full rent paid for the floor, meaning it incurred a $2.6 million loss, not a profit.

The Court also held that the obligation to remit profit was not 'rent', and therefore the 2-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied.

A case conference was held regarding an application by a purchaser for the return of a $430,000 deposit from a failed real estate auction, and a related action by the auctioneer for its commission.

The court ordered a consent interpleader allowing the auctioneer's counsel to pay the deposit into court.

The court also set a timetable for a cross-application by the auctioneer and stayed the related action pending the outcome of the applications.

The plaintiff moved for judgment against a defendant who had been noted in default after his statement of defence was struck and he failed to participate in the litigation process.

The action arose from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for a ski resort property valued at $16 million, where the purchasing corporation and its shareholders failed to complete the transaction.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring the motion despite the matter having been set down for trial, finding a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances due to the defendant’s post‑trial-setting default and non-participation.

Because the defendant was noted in default, the allegations in the statement of claim were deemed admitted.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s appraisal evidence and awarded damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation.

In six Ontario libel actions tied to statements posted by a U.S. company and later republished in Ontario newspapers, the appellants argued Ontario lacked jurisdiction or should defer to Illinois.

The Court held that defamation was presumptively connected to Ontario because publication occurred there through reading, downloading, and republication.

It concluded the appellants did not rebut jurisdiction and did not prove Illinois was clearly the more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.