Amer Mushtaq

The parties settled a wrongful dismissal action for $15,000 but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded due to the plaintiff's conduct and the small settlement amount.

The court found the defendant fought the case aggressively and that a plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action should reasonably expect partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in costs, inclusive of a $3,000 deduction for the defendant's costs of finalizing the settlement.

The appellant pharmacy entered into an agreement for telemedicine services and signed an equipment lease.

The telemedicine provider defaulted, and the appellant discovered the lease contained a 'no cancellation' clause requiring continued payments to the respondent lessor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the 'no cancellation' clause unenforceable under the Tilden Rent-A-Car principle because the lessor failed to take reasonable measures to draw the harsh and oppressive term to the appellant's attention.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff and third party, the plaintiff sought reconsideration of the pre-judgment and post-judgment interest rates, arguing for the contractual rate rather than the Courts of Justice Act rate.

The court declined to reconsider the pre-judgment interest rate as it had been addressed, and clarified that the Courts of Justice Act rate also applied to post-judgment interest.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the plaintiff and $15,000 to the third party, payable by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmacy for defaulting on an equipment lease for a telemedicine studio.

The defendant argued the lease was unenforceable due to a unilateral mistake, claiming it believed it was contracting solely with the telemedicine service provider, who allegedly perpetrated a fraud.

The third-party lease broker also moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant's claim against it.

The court granted both motions, finding the lease enforceable as the defendant accepted the equipment and made payments, and there was no evidence the plaintiff or the broker participated in or knew of the alleged fraud.