Krista Chaytor

The defendant brought a motion for particulars regarding the third party defence in an action for constructive dismissal.

The defendant sought details of communications alleged by the third party in his defence, arguing they were necessary to plead a reply.

The third party argued the request was an attempt to discover evidence prematurely.

The court granted the motion, finding that the particulars were not within the defendant's knowledge and were necessary for the defendant to frame its reply to the third party defence.

The plaintiff foundation, established by a deceased donor, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction or an order under Rule 45.02 to prevent the defendant charitable foundation from making distributions from a donor-advised fund.

The plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to make distributions according to the plaintiff's instructions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried because a valid charitable gift requires the donor to divest all power and control over the property to the donee.

The plaintiff conceded it could not compel specific donations, and failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that it validly renewed its commercial lease for a five-year term.

The respondent landlord argued the renewal was invalid because the tenant was in default of its obligations to pay common area maintenance and realty taxes when it gave notice.

The court found that the parties had deviated from the strict payment terms of the lease for years, and the landlord could not retroactively assert a default without providing notice.

Furthermore, the lease contained a tenant-friendly renewal clause that allowed the tenant to cure any default and renew even after the initial deadline had passed.

The court granted the declaration that the lease was validly renewed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a paragraph from the plaintiff's Reply and Defence to Counterclaim under Rule 25.11.

The plaintiff, a dentist, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal and discrimination, alleging a pattern of discriminatory conduct against female employees.

In her Reply, she alleged a broader pattern of spurious allegations against any employee who left the practice.

The court found the impugned paragraph was a bald statement without supporting facts, overly broad, and amounted to a fishing expedition that would prejudice and delay the fair trial of the action.

The motion was granted and the paragraph was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant sought a declaration to apply $73,152.50 of an unused leasehold allowance to offset rent owing under a commercial lease.

At the hearing, the respondent consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the declaration on consent and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $24,216.44, noting that the applicant should not have been put to the trouble of preparing the application.

The applicant landlord and respondent tenant brought cross-applications regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought a declaration that the lease expired in 2029, while the tenant argued it expired in 2039.

The tenant also sought orders requiring the landlord to replace the roof and parking lot, and an injunction regarding access to a parcel of land.

The court found the lease documents were ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence, concluding the lease expires in 2039.

The court dismissed the tenant's counter-application, finding the landlord was not obligated to replace the roof or parking lot, and an injunction was premature.

Following a successful application to terminate commercial leases and obtain vacant possession, the applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondents engaged in reprehensible conduct, including stonewalling, unnecessary cross-examinations, and threatening applicants' counsel, to avoid their clear legal obligations.

The court awarded the applicants costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the total amount of $80,771.64.

Supplementary reasons following an order setting aside a registrar's dismissal for delay.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that while the plaintiff was successful, it had received an indulgence and the defendants' opposition was reasonable.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering the plaintiff to produce the representative chosen by the defendants for examination for discovery, and setting an attendance fee for witnesses travelling to Toronto.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of a $70,210 USD deposit paid to the defendant for a 2014 Masters golf tournament package.

The package included a guaranteed 'Golf Day' at Augusta National, which the defendant failed to provide.

The parties amended the agreement to move the trip to 2015, but the defendant again failed to secure the Golf Day and eventually offered unacceptable alternatives.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the Golf Day at Augusta National was a fundamental term, the amendments were valid, and the defendant's conduct constituted an anticipatory repudiation.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the return of the deposit and awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The defendant landlord moved for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the plaintiff tenant to allow access to the leased premises for environmental testing related to redevelopment.

The landlord relied on a lease provision requiring the tenant not to hinder redevelopment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lease provision did not grant the landlord a right of access, the landlord's case on the merits was weak, and there was insufficient evidence of irreparable harm.

In a product liability action arising from a fire allegedly caused by a defective block heater, multiple corporate defendants asserted cross‑claims.

One defendant moved for an order permitting the examination for discovery of a specific employee of another corporate defendant who allegedly made representations regarding the suitability of a component incorporated into the heater.

The court considered Rules 31.03, 31.04, 31.05, and 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court held that examination of the employee was appropriate and would expedite the conduct of the action without undue expense or inconvenience.

The court directed the order and scope of examinations and allowed the motion, with costs awarded to the moving defendant.

The respondent university brought a motion to transfer an application from Ottawa to Guelph.

The underlying dispute concerned the university’s refusal to continue collecting and remitting membership fees to national and provincial student organizations after a student referendum discontinued membership.

Applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the location of events, damages, community interest, and convenience of the parties and witnesses.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish that the proposed venue was significantly better than the applicants’ chosen forum.

The motion to transfer venue was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

A commercial landlord sought declarations that a tenant failed to validly exercise an option to extend a lease and was therefore an overholding tenant.

The tenant brought a competing application seeking a declaration that it had validly exercised the option or alternatively that the option remained exercisable.

The court reviewed the law governing the exercise of lease renewal or extension options and the requirement for clear and unequivocal acceptance communicated to the landlord.

Interpreting the lease and rider provisions together, the court found that written notice delivered by courier within the rider’s timeline satisfied the contractual requirements and unambiguously exercised the extension option.

The landlord’s arguments concerning timing, delivery method, authority of the signatory, and use of the term “renewal” instead of “extension” were rejected.

The applicant developer sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a condominium unit it had sold to the respondent, alleging the agreement of purchase and sale was induced by fraudulent representations concerning a larger contemplated purchase of additional units.

The applicant sought rescission and claimed the respondent held the unit in constructive trust.

The court held that the applicant had established a triable issue and a claim to an interest in land for CPL purposes.

However, applying equitable discretion and the Dhunna factors, the court concluded that the property was not unique to the applicant, damages were readily calculable, and the respondent would suffer greater harm due to a pending sale to a third party.

The motion for leave to issue a CPL was therefore dismissed.