Krista Ruth Chaytor

The appellant, Janice Antonio, Executrix of The Estate of Inez Antonio, appealed a discretionary decision of an Associate Justice to extend the time to set the action down for trial under rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Associate Justice correctly identified and applied the legal test, considered the relevant evidence, and exercised discretion appropriately.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The decision addresses a motion by Gowing Contractors Ltd. and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. to strike the statement of defence of Walsh Construction Company Canada and Walsh Construction Co., and to stay related actions, on the basis that Walsh failed to immediately disclose a settlement with the City of Toronto in a related action.

The court found that the settlement did not entirely change the litigation landscape of the actions involving Gowing and Zurich, and therefore the immediate disclosure doctrine did not apply.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, The Guarantee Company of North America, sought an extension of time to serve a statement of claim or to validate service in a construction indemnity action.

The court reviewed the lengthy delay in service, the explanations provided, and the resulting prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed, with the court finding the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would be prejudiced in their ability to defend the action due to lost records and faded memories.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash a motion for leave to appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The Superior Court had dismissed an application to review an arbitrator's jurisdiction decision, finding the responding parties had waived their right to object.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the application judge's order, citing s. 17(9) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, which explicitly states there is no appeal from a court's decision on a preliminary question of an arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The court found the arbitrator's jurisdiction ruling was indeed a preliminary question, despite its timing.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was quashed, and costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The applicants sought a determination that the arbitrator erred in finding jurisdiction over certain relief claimed by the respondents in an ongoing arbitration.

The court found that the applicants had waived their right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction through their conduct, including filing a counterclaim and issuing their own notice of demand for arbitration invoking the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing that allowing a last-minute jurisdictional challenge after significant participation would undermine the efficiency and benefits of arbitration.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set down a 2016 action for trial and to timetable remaining litigation steps, arguing an acceptable explanation for delay and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The defendants, including Inez Antonio and the Nialund defendants (Gore Mutual Insurance Company and Nialund Properties Limited), opposed the motion, with Inez Antonio bringing a cross-motion to dismiss for delay.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding their explanation for delay adequate and the defendants' assertions of prejudice unsupported, noting the defendants' passivity in the litigation.

The cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant, MGW-Homes Design Inc., appealed an order vacating a writ of enforcement related to an adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act.

The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which depended on whether the order constituted a "judgment" under s. 71(1) of the Construction Act, in which case the appeal would lie to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal, interpreting "judgment" broadly consistent with prior case law and the Act's purpose of efficiency, found that the order was a "judgment" under s. 71(1).

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it properly belonged in the Divisional Court.

The defendant landlord sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff tenant's claim and for judgment on its counterclaim for withheld rent, stemming from a dispute over the calculation of realty taxes under a commercial lease.

The tenant sought a declaration regarding the proper calculation method and an accounting for overcharges.

The court dismissed the landlord's motion for summary judgment and its counterclaim for the specific amount.

However, it granted the tenant's request for a declaration that the landlord must calculate realty taxes according to the lease's terms, applying a six-year limitation period for any past overcharges based on the Real Property Limitations Act.

The plaintiff, Canadian Flight Academy Ltd. (CFA), brought a motion seeking production of documents and answers to refusals from the City of Oshawa in a dispute over a lease extension at the Oshawa Executive Airport.

The motion addressed three main areas: airport noise complaints, land parcel "Part 42" usage, and a proposed land sale.

A significant portion of the ruling focused on the City's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over various emails and "closed reports." The court applied principles of relevance, proportionality, and third-party privacy, and conducted a detailed, document-by-document analysis of privilege claims, granting some production requests while upholding many of the City's privilege assertions.

Domenic Pasqualino brought a motion to vacate a writ of enforcement issued by MGW Homes Design Inc. under the Construction Act, which was based on an Adjudicator's determination.

MGW failed to provide notice of filing the determination with the court within the statutory 10-day period as required by s. 13.20(3) of the Act.

The court ruled that strict compliance with this notice requirement is mandatory for the determination to be enforceable as a court order.

Consequently, the writ was deemed void due to non-compliance, and Pasqualino's motion was granted.

The court also addressed the issue of costs, awarding them to Pasqualino.

This case involved four consolidated applications concerning arbitrations over construction defects at two hospitals.

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. challenged the arbitrators' jurisdiction, arguing non-compliance with procedural prerequisites and a limited scope of the arbitrators' power to award remedies.

Johnson Controls Canada LP sought declaratory relief regarding the nature of a contractual "Reconsideration Right" of the arbitrators' decisions, specifically whether it entailed a de novo hearing or an appeal.

The court dismissed all four applications, upholding the arbitrators' jurisdiction and declining to rule on the hypothetical future reconsideration right, stating the issue had not yet crystallized.

This case involved four consolidated applications concerning arbitrations over construction defects at two hospitals.

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. challenged the arbitrators' jurisdiction, arguing non-compliance with procedural prerequisites and a limited scope of the arbitrators' power to award remedies.

Johnson Controls Canada LP sought declaratory relief regarding the nature of a contractual "Reconsideration Right" of the arbitrators' decisions, specifically whether it entailed a de novo hearing or an appeal.

The court dismissed all four applications, upholding the arbitrators' jurisdiction and declining to rule on the hypothetical future reconsideration right, stating the issue had not yet crystallized.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment awarding damages for the appellants' failure to close a residential real estate transaction.

The appellants challenged the damages amount, arguing failure to mitigate and issues with expert evidence.

The respondent cross-appealed the prejudgment and postjudgment interest rates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding the appellants failed to discharge their onus on mitigation, and the cross-appeal, affirming the motion judge's discretion to depart from the contractual interest rate due to special circumstances (respondent's delay in marketing the property).

The City of Orillia appealed a lower court's finding that a commercial lease term was ambiguous, arguing the lease expired in 2029, not 2039.

Metro cross-appealed regarding roof repair obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no ambiguity in the lease, concluding it expired in 2029, and upheld the lower court's decision that Metro was responsible for roof repairs under the lease's "maintain and repair" covenant, distinguishing between repair and replacement in the context of the lease terms and property condition.

The plaintiff, Tribute (Simcoe Street) Limited, brought a motion for default judgment against defendant Xiao Ping Huang for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a townhouse condominium.

Ms. Huang, who was assigned the APS, failed to take possession on the scheduled occupancy date and subsequently did not file a statement of defence, leading to her being noted in default.

The court found Ms. Huang in breach of the APS and awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $87,678.21, representing the difference between the original purchase price and the resale price, unpaid occupancy fees, and other related costs and interest.

The court also awarded costs on a full indemnity basis as stipulated in the APS but declined to apply the contractual post-judgment interest rate, instead applying the statutory rate, citing a lack of evidence that the clause was brought to Ms. Huang's attention and a significant power imbalance.

This appeal arose from a successful application terminating two commercial leases for non-payment of rent and awarding arrears and damages for lost future rent.

The appellants challenged the application judge's final and interlocutory orders, alleging procedural irregularities, improper use of self-help remedies, failure to mitigate damages, and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that an application was the appropriate procedure, self-help remedies were properly exercised, and there was no error in the mitigation assessment or evidence of bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicants sought an order terminating two commercial leases for non-payment of rent, requiring vacant possession, granting leave for a writ of possession, and ordering payment of rent arrears and damages for lost future rent.

The respondents brought a motion to stay or dismiss the application, arguing the litigation guardian had limited knowledge and that the matter should proceed as an action.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion, finding the application appropriate and the litigation guardian's involvement proper.

The court granted the applicants all requested relief, concluding that the respondents had no unilateral right to set off alleged damages against rent and had failed to provide evidence of such damages.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for default on a commercial lease.

Despite being noted in default and receiving multiple communications regarding the plaintiff's intention to seek default judgment, the defendant failed to respond or appear at the motion.

The court found the defendant in default, that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate damages, and granted default judgment for the claimed amount and costs.

The Landlord, 1694879 Ontario Inc., brought claims for fraudulent removal of goods against its tenant, Baffo's Incorporated, and several "Personal Defendants" who allegedly aided the removal.

Baffo's and the Personal Defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment to dismiss these claims.

Baffo's also counterclaimed for wrongful distress and conversion, and sought punitive damages.

The court dismissed the Landlord's fraudulent removal claims against all defendants, finding no fraudulent intent as the goods removed were done so with the Landlord's consent (as brokered by police) and the remaining goods far exceeded the rental arrears.

The court granted summary judgment to Baffo's on its wrongful distress and conversion claims, finding the Landlord's actions illegal, excessive, and oppressive due to unlawful entry, lock changes, inflated arrears claims, seizure of fixtures, and unreasonable delay in selling goods.

The court also found Daryl Black, the Landlord's president, personally liable for the wrongful distress.

Punitive damages of $20,000 were awarded to Baffo's, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Personal Defendants ($140,000) and Baffo's ($78,000).

Damages for wrongful distress and rental arrears were referred to a Master.

The plaintiff moved to strike portions of the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim, which alleged civil fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and equitable set-off.

The defendants' pleadings detailed a scheme where the plaintiff allegedly overbilled for goods and services and provided kickbacks to a former employee.

The court reviewed the requirements for pleading material facts and particulars, especially for allegations of fraud and conspiracy, and the elements of equitable set-off.

The motion to strike was dismissed, conditional on the defendants providing further particulars regarding false purchase orders, invoices, and claimed damages.