K.E. Pedlar

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a Small Claims Court decision enforcing an early termination liquidated damages clause in a service contract with the respondent.

The appellant argued the clause, which required payment of 50 percent of the remaining contract value, was unreasonable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law.

The court affirmed that liquidated damages clauses are presumed enforceable and the onus rests on the party challenging the clause to demonstrate it is oppressive or unreasonable, which the appellant failed to do.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, as well as repayment of funds from a joint cheque and damages for increased financing costs.

The court imputed incomes for both parties, ordering the respondent to pay $846.73 in monthly child support and $400 in monthly spousal support.

The court also ordered the respondent to repay $10,875.36 via a pension transfer, but dismissed the applicant's claim for increased financing costs, finding the respondent's delay in transferring title was justified by his consumer proposal.

The respondent municipality was successful in defending an application and sought costs of $7,689.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued costs should be denied because the respondent introduced facts in its factum regarding the existence of private parks that were not included in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had addressed the issue and could have easily verified the public record prior to the hearing.

The court awarded the respondent its claimed costs of $7,689.00.

Property owners sought declarations that a proposed paintball facility on land zoned “rural” was a permitted use under a municipal zoning by-law.

The municipality maintained the proposed use constituted a commercial recreational activity requiring rezoning.

Applying modern principles of statutory interpretation to municipal by-laws and considering the zoning by-law within the broader framework of the municipality’s Official Plan, the court held that a “Private Park” under the by-law referred to passive recreational open space intended for limited private use rather than commercial recreation offered to the public.

The court concluded the proposed paintball facility more closely resembled a “Place of Recreation” where recreation is provided for a fee and therefore constituted a new commercial use.

As new commercial uses in the rural designation required a zoning amendment, the applicants’ request for declaratory relief was refused.

The plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on snow accumulated near a curb in a commercial parking lot.

The property owner and the snow removal contractor brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

Applying the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the property owner's liability, as there were questions about the parking lot design and the adequacy of the snow removal plan.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the snow removal contractor, finding it had fulfilled its contractual obligations.

The plaintiffs, tenants of a commercial property including a motel and restaurant/bar, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction requiring the landlord defendants to repair the premises, an abatement of rent, and relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached the lease by failing to provide the restaurant/bar in an operational state and failing to repair major structural systems.

The court found the plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm due to ongoing repair expenses and loss of income.

The court granted the injunction, ordered a 50% abatement of rent until repairs are completed, and granted relief from forfeiture, noting the plaintiffs' substantial investment in the property.