Krista Ruth Chaytor

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

The defendants (Foodfest, Henry Ender, and Sue Ellen Ender) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision that dismissed their summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them on the basis of limitation periods.

The court applied the strict two-part test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

It found no conflicting decisions on matters of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order that transcended the immediate parties' interests.

The motion judge's finding that the discoverability of the conspiracy claims was a genuine issue requiring a trial was upheld.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved allegations of a conspiracy to defame the plaintiff, and the moving parties argued the claims against them were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct test for summary judgment and correctly concluded that the discoverability of the claims was a genuine issue for trial.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance transcending the interests of the parties.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to amend its Statement of Claim, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a provision in a construction bond.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding it unduly onerous and noting that only one of the three proposed amendments related to the enforcement of the bond.

Applying the principle of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $12,000.

Ozz Electric Inc., a subcontractor, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to advance various claims against the project owner, The Corporation of the City of Kitchener.

The proposed amendments included claims that the City was liable under a Labour and Material Payment Bond, liable in negligence for economic loss due to project delays, and liable for contribution and indemnity for alleged deficient workmanship.

The court dismissed all proposed amendments, finding no legal basis for the City's liability under the bond, that the negligence claim for economic loss was insufficiently pleaded, and that the claim for contribution and indemnity lacked a tenable legal basis.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to Ozz Electric Inc. to bring a further motion to amend the negligence claim with proper pleading.

The University of Guelph moved to compel affiants of the University of Guelph Central Student Association (CSA), Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), and Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario (CFS-O) to re-attend cross-examination, answer objected questions, and produce documents.

The motion addressed seven outstanding refusals concerning the personal beliefs of a former executive, recommendations from a law firm (solicitor-client privilege), redactions to a memorandum and reports (solicitor-client and common-interest privilege), a tolling agreement (relevance), and redactions to settlement emails (common-interest privilege).

The court dismissed requests regarding personal beliefs and legal advice, upheld most redactions based on privilege, but ordered disclosure of the final executed tolling agreement and removal of certain redactions from settlement emails related to timing.

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.