Kelsey Kathleen Gordon

The plaintiff moved for judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement purportedly executed following a pre-trial conference regarding a dispute over beneficial ownership of two condominium properties.

The defendants opposed, arguing they did not agree to transfer the property as a trustee to a beneficial owner and felt pressured to sign.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record deficient and conflicting, with three different versions of the Minutes of Settlement presented and no direct evidence from the plaintiff confirming his signature.

A trial was directed to determine whether a binding settlement agreement was actually reached.

The appellant, Elizabeth Philbert, brought a motion to the Court of Appeal for Ontario to set aside a Registrar's dismissal of her previous motion.

This previous motion sought to review an order by Thorburn J.A. that had dismissed her attempt to extend time to perfect an appeal of a Superior Court order.

The Superior Court order, issued by Steele J., had dismissed her claim as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The Court of Appeal, through George J.A., denied Philbert's motion, finding that she failed to properly perfect her motion by serving the respondent and that the underlying appeal lacked merit, consistent with prior findings that her claims were vexatious litigation.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the orders of the motions judge granting and extending interim injunctive relief in favour of the plaintiff.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issues of whether the motions judge erred in granting the initial injunction and extending it despite a pending anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs of the leave motion were awarded to the moving party.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a large commercial vehicle to be parked in their residential driveway for a home-based business.

The Tribunal found that the variance failed to meet the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the large vehicle was incompatible with the residential streetscape, did not maintain the intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was not authorized.

Following a trial regarding reciprocal easements and commercial redevelopment, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs achieved divided success, obtaining some but not all of the declaratory relief sought and failing to obtain a permanent injunction.

The court declined to make a distributive costs order, instead reducing the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs by 50% to reflect their divided success and over-staffing, awarding them $638,804.86 against the Market Village defendants.

The Kennedy defendants were awarded $70,000 in partial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs and defendants own contiguous commercial retail centres and share reciprocal easements for access and parking.

The defendants proposed a major redevelopment that would expand their building footprint onto lands subject to the plaintiffs' easement, eliminating hundreds of surface parking spaces.

The plaintiffs sought declarations and an injunction to prevent the development.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proposed development would substantially interfere with the plaintiffs' easement rights and overburden the remaining shared parking.

The court granted specific declarations confirming the breach of the easements but declined to issue a permanent injunction, finding it unnecessary given existing structural safeguards.

The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt of court against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered in a previous trial judgment.

The court heard evidence from a Ministry of Natural Resources official regarding the defendants' efforts to obtain the necessary work permits for the removal.

The court found that the defendants were making genuine efforts to comply with the judgment and navigate the regulatory requirements, and therefore dismissed the contempt motion, ordering the defendants to continue using best efforts to remedy the nuisance.

The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered following a trial.

The defendants argued that the delay was due to the need for a Ministry of Natural Resources work permit and a pending appeal.

The court found that while the defendants improperly delayed applying for the permit while seeking a stay, they were justified in waiting for the permit before commencing demolition.

The court adjourned the contempt motion to allow time for the permit to be issued and the work to be completed, with leave to return if further delays occur.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a two-week trial where the Plaintiff and Third Party were entirely successful.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial, citing the Defendants' unreasonable litigation conduct and the Garber Defendants' rejection of a generous Rule 49 offer to settle.

Additionally, costs thrown away due to an adjournment caused by Ms. Garber's ill health were awarded against the Garber Defendants, though reduced from the amount claimed.

The decision also clarifies that the Costs Subcommittee's recommended rates for Rule 57 are outdated and discusses the limited relevance of a litigant's ability to pay costs without sufficient evidence.

During a trial for nuisance, the defendants sought to introduce evidence of the plaintiff's alleged retaliatory conduct (e.g., loud music, smoke) to mitigate punitive damages.

The court ruled this evidence inadmissible, finding no causal connection between the plaintiff's post-nuisance conduct and the defendants' initial actionable conduct (building a dock) or their failure to rectify it.

The court emphasized that for such evidence to be relevant to punitive damages, it must have provoked the defendant's actionable conduct, and any defense based on the plaintiff's conduct influencing the failure to rectify must be pleaded.

This case involved consolidated applications seeking declaratory relief regarding lease renewal options.

Brewers Retail Inc. (Landlord) and Hasty Market Corp. (Tenant) disputed the number of five-year renewal options granted in a 2009 lease renewal, with the Tenant asserting two options and the Landlord one.

The Tenant also raised promissory estoppel.

The court found that the agreement unambiguously provided for only one five-year renewal option, not two, based on the written record and the Landlord's waiver letter.

The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that no unambiguous promise was made by the Landlord and the Tenant failed to establish detrimental reliance.

Promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable to create new rights not agreed upon.