Krista Ruth Chaytor

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.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in a fraud action.

The court found that the default judgment had been obtained after procedural irregularities, including the plaintiffs noting the defendants in default and obtaining judgment without notice while a motion to strike the statement of claim was pending and after the action had been dismissed as abandoned.

Relying on established authority, the court held that where a default judgment is obtained while a motion affecting the pleadings is before the court, the defendant is entitled to have the judgment set aside as of right without demonstrating a defence on the merits.

The court declined to require the defendants to pay security despite the plaintiffs’ concern about a potential bankruptcy affecting the fraud claim.

The judgment was set aside and procedural deadlines were imposed requiring the defendants to either bring their motion to strike or deliver a statement of defence within 30 days.

Following motions for security for costs brought by two defendants, the court addressed the costs of those motions.

The defendants had obtained security for costs orders but in amounts lower than requested.

The court considered the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 1.04, 56.01, and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the moving parties were largely successful, reductions were warranted due to incomplete success and procedural issues related to timing of a statement of defence.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff.

Defendants brought motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against a foreign corporate plaintiff resident in Russia with no assets in Ontario.

The court confirmed the two‑stage framework for security for costs motions and held the defendants met the initial burden because the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or other circumstances making a security order unjust, despite having substantial funds abroad.

The court exercised its discretion to order staged security for costs, including amounts related to pending motions to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court also granted a sealing order over a document containing non‑party investors’ financial information and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for the confidentiality motion.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an Agreement to Lease was a valid and binding contract and that he was in breach for failing to commence tenant improvements.

The appellant argued that the respondent repudiated the agreement by insisting on a draft lease with terms significantly different from the Agreement to Lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that the disputed terms in the draft lease were incompatible with the financial principles of the Agreement to Lease, and therefore the agreement remained enforceable when the respondent terminated it due to the appellant's default.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent for wrongful termination of a commercial lease and the aborted sale of the respondent's business.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability, agreeing that the appellant wrongfully terminated the lease and unreasonably withheld consent to assign it.

However, the Court varied the damages award, reducing it by $10,000 to account for legal fees the respondent had not actually paid.

The respondent's cross-appeal for punitive and aggravated damages was dismissed.

Following the release of the main decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario received further submissions on costs.

The Court ordered that the costs of the application for leave, the motion for leave to appeal, and the appeal be awarded to the appellant in the cause.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence an action against a trustee administering a court-approved proposal.

The Court of Appeal held that on a s. 215 motion the judge must only determine whether there is a factual basis for the claim and whether it discloses a cause of action, not finally decide the merits.

The motions judge erred by conclusively interpreting the proposal and the trustee's duties, thereby exceeding jurisdiction on the threshold application.

The court also declined to refuse leave on the basis that the appellant should have proceeded under s. 37 instead.

Leave to commence the action was granted.