Adam Brunswick

The tenant appealed a summary judgment that required it to pay rent during government-mandated COVID-19 closures and denied an extension of the lease term.

The Court of Appeal held that the force majeure clause did not excuse the tenant from paying rent during the closures because the clause expressly excluded financial inability.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in interpreting the excusing provision of the force majeure clause.

The Court held that the landlord's obligation to provide the premises was excused during the closures, but the lease term must be extended for an equivalent period, during which the tenant is not required to pay rent.

The plaintiffs requested a case conference to fix a trial date despite failing to complete a mandatory mediation by the court-ordered deadline.

One of the plaintiffs booked a vacation that conflicted with the scheduled mediation date, showing disregard for the court's prior order.

The court refused to dispense with the mediation requirement or hold a trial date as a placeholder, and consequently struck the action from the trial list until mediation is completed and the matter is truly ready for trial.

The plaintiffs requested an urgent case conference to schedule a mediation and fix a trial date before the action was administratively dismissed.

One of the plaintiffs objected, citing an upcoming motion regarding the removal of his counsel in a separate action.

The court found it unfair to delay the other plaintiffs and ordered that mediation be held by June 30, 2022, and that the action appear on the trial scheduling court list on April 11, 2022.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim against the defendant David Rosenkrantz, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against Rosenkrantz in his capacity as an officer and director of the Patica Companies, relating to a tax deferral arrangement.

The court found the pleadings lacked the necessary material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability, negligent misrepresentation, or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim and the related crossclaim against Rosenkrantz, but granted leave to amend.

The appellant agreed to purchase a commercial property from the respondent for $9 million, subject to a vendor take-back mortgage.

The transaction failed to close after the parties could not agree on the terms of a secondary financing agreement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent, allowing it to retain $1.2 million in deposits.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the agreement's secondary financing and escrow deed provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's interpretation of the strict terms for secondary financing was commercially reasonable and supported by the record.

The plaintiff purchaser moved for summary judgment seeking return of $1.2 million in deposits paid under an aborted real estate transaction, while the defendant vendor cross‑moved for summary judgment declaring its entitlement to retain the deposits.

The dispute centred on whether the vendor improperly refused to accept a proposed subordination and standstill agreement relating to secondary financing and thereby prevented closing.

The court held that the agreement of purchase and sale permitted secondary financing only if the secondary lender subordinated its rights to the vendor’s vendor‑take‑back mortgage and related security provisions, including an escrow deed provision and an escalator clause.

The purchaser’s proposed financing arrangements would have impaired those security rights and therefore did not comply with the contract.

The court concluded the purchaser failed to close and the vendor was entitled to retain the deposits.

An applicant sought enforcement of Letters Rogatory issued by a United States district court requesting video testimony from Ontario residents in aid of a Florida civil action concerning alleged unsolicited fax advertisements.

The respondents argued the request amounted to a fishing expedition and noted a partial stay of discovery in the underlying action.

Applying the six‑factor test for enforcement of foreign letters rogatory, the court held that the requested evidence was likely relevant, potentially necessary for trial, and not otherwise obtainable.

The court found the request was not contrary to public policy and was not unduly burdensome.

The application to compel examination under oath was granted.

The appellants brought a proposed class action against a washing machine manufacturer, alleging that its front-loading machines were defectively designed and prone to developing mould and unpleasant odours.

They sought damages for pure economic loss, asserting claims for breach of express and implied warranties, breach of the Competition Act, negligence, and waiver of tort.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the certification motion, finding that none of the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

Notably, the court held that policy considerations negate recognizing a duty of care in tort for pure economic loss arising from a defective, non-dangerous consumer product.