Lawrence S. Wong

The plaintiff landlord sought summary judgment against the corporate tenant and its individual directors/managers for alleged breaches of a lease agreement.

The court found numerous substantive factual disputes and significant evidentiary gaps, including the validity of a personal guarantee, access to the premises during renovations, the commencement date of rent, property damage, and the circumstances of the tenancy termination.

Due to the fundamental nature of these evidentiary gaps, the court determined that summary judgment was not appropriate and that a full trial was required to resolve the issues.

This decision concerns a costs award following a partition and sale application where the court had previously found divided success.

Both parties sought costs, but the court dismissed both claims.

The court determined that there was no conduct warranting a punitive costs award, and the offer to settle made by one party was untimely and not more favourable than the court's decision.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs.

Michelle Ng and Eric Tang, former romantic partners and joint tenants of a condominium, both applied under the Partition Act to end their co-ownership.

Ng sought to purchase Tang's interest, arguing for an unequal distribution based on her significant after-purchase contributions, claiming unjust enrichment.

Tang sought a sale with 50:50 division after accounting for a mortgage he placed on the property and Ng's payment of occupation rent.

The court ordered partition and sale, dismissing both Ng's unjust enrichment claim for unequal distribution and Tang's claim for occupation rent.

The proceeds are to be divided 50:50 after Tang discharges his mortgage and pays Ng his share of her after-purchase contributions.

This commercial tenancy dispute involved a summary judgment motion by the landlords seeking eviction and rental arrears due to the tenants' breaches, including non-payment of rent and changing locks.

The tenants sought relief from forfeiture and a mandatory injunction for repairs, claiming set-off for repair costs.

The court found the final lease agreement governed the relationship, rejecting claims of oral modification or abandonment.

It determined the tenants were in fundamental breach for non-payment of rent and locking out the landlords, and that the landlords had fulfilled their repair obligations.

The tenants' claims for set-off were denied due to lease terms and insufficient evidence, and relief from forfeiture was denied due to the wilful nature and gravity of the breaches, and the tenants' "unclean hands." The lease was declared terminated, the tenants were ordered to vacate, and judgment was granted to the landlords for outstanding rent.

The plaintiff, Pomata Investment Corp., sought summary judgment against the defendant, Yanhua Shi, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a residential property.

The defendant argued misrepresentation and lack of duty of care by the plaintiff's agent, and challenged the damages calculation and mitigation efforts.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding liability, rejecting the non est factum defence and the alleged duty of care.

The court also found the plaintiff's mitigation efforts reasonable and the damages calculation valid.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the claimed damages plus interest and costs.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs regarding a residential condominium property dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs of $200,000, while the defendant argued for no costs or a nominal amount due to credibility findings.

The court found the matter complex but not vexatious, rejecting full indemnity.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $110,908.00.

The plaintiffs, parents of the defendant, sought summary judgment to remove the defendant's name from the title of a condominium property they held as joint tenants.

The defendant claimed the property was purchased as an investment through a loan agreement that constituted a disguised mortgage, and that the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred.

The court found the loan agreement was not a disguised mortgage and that the defendant had agreed in writing in 2004 to relinquish her interest in exchange for $91,000 USD, which she received.

The court held the defendant breached the contract by refusing to transfer title, and granted summary judgment ordering the removal of her name from the title.

The applicant mortgagors sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent mortgagee from enforcing its security against a restaurant business, arguing they were entitled to pay interest only on the loan.

The court found the chattel mortgage clearly required principal repayments and the applicants were in default.

However, the court noted the respondent's seizure of the assets was unlawful due to lack of statutory notice.

The injunction was denied as damages would be an adequate remedy, and the damages claim was dismissed without prejudice due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

The applicant sought an order declaring a codicil to a deceased testator’s will invalid and removing the respondent as executor and trustee.

The impugned codicil purported to replace the executors named in the will with the respondent as sole executor and trustee.

The court considered whether the codicil had been properly executed and whether suspicious circumstances existed surrounding its preparation.

Applying the principles from Vout v. Hay, the court held that the absence of affidavits of execution and inconsistencies in the respondent’s conduct raised significant suspicious circumstances that were not explained.

The court therefore concluded the codicil was invalid and granted further relief removing the respondent from any role in administering the estate.

The defendants brought a motion seeking enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement arising from negotiations following a trademark dispute between competing food businesses.

The plaintiffs argued that the correspondence between counsel constituted only ongoing negotiations and not a finalized settlement.

Applying principles of contract formation governing settlements, the court considered whether there was a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and whether all essential terms had been agreed upon.

The court concluded that the correspondence demonstrated continuing negotiations and unresolved essential terms, including timing for the disposal of inventory.

As there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms, no binding settlement contract was formed and there was nothing for the court to enforce.