Lawrie Jacques

The Tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., sought partial indemnity costs after successfully applying under s. 23 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, where the Landlord, Eli Messica, had unreasonably withheld consent to a lease assignment.

The Tenant requested $18,417.86, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Landlord opposed, arguing the Tenant's lawyer's time was excessive and proposing a reduced award of $10,356.45.

The court found the Tenant's lawyer's hourly rate modest and the time expended reasonable for an important matter, ultimately awarding the Tenant the full requested costs.

The tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., applied for a court order determining that the landlord, Eli Messica, unreasonably withheld consent to assign a commercial lease to Moksha Enterprise Ltd. The landlord initially expressed satisfaction with the proposed assignee but later rescinded consent, citing concerns that the assignee might seek to renegotiate rent and that the tenant was in default of lease renewal agreement improvements.

The court found that the landlord's primary stated reason for refusal (assignee seeking rent renegotiation) dissipated after the assignee confirmed its intent to abide by the lease terms.

The court also determined that the landlord's subsequent reliance on the tenant's alleged defaults was an after-the-fact justification and not the genuine reason for refusal at the time.

The application was granted, concluding that the landlord's refusal was unreasonable.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $243,400 obtained by the plaintiffs for unpaid loans.

The defendant claimed he was never served with the statement of claim and only learned of the action later.

The court found the defendant was personally served, failed to act promptly, and did not present an arguable defence.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff construction company supplied concrete foundation services and materials to the defendants under a verbal contract.

The plaintiff registered a construction lien for $42,798.75 and brought an action for payment.

The defendants argued the contract was with their numbered company, the price was lower, and they had paid in cash.

The court found the contract was with the individual defendants, accepted the plaintiff's evidence of the contract price, and found no payments were made toward this specific project.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the full amount claimed and confirmed the validity of the lien.