Danielle Bertin

The applicant, The District Municipality of Muskoka, sought a declaration that a lease agreement with the respondent, David Gronfors, had validly terminated and an order for vacant possession of airport premises.

The respondent argued the lease had not expired, that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction due to the airport context (federal law), and that a forum selection clause mandated the Federal Court.

The court found that the provincial Commercial Tenancies Act applied, exercised its discretion to hear the case despite the forum selection clause, and determined the lease had indeed expired on October 31, 2023, based on clear lease terms and the respondent's prior inconsistent representations in other litigation.

A writ of possession was ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs on consent.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Society brought a motion for temporary care of the infant child, G., to be placed with kin caregivers, and for access to the mother, C.B., to be at the Society's discretion.

The mother opposed, seeking return of the child or supervised access by her adult daughter.

The court granted temporary care to the kin caregivers, finding a risk of harm due to the mother's unaddressed mental health issues and non-cooperation with the Society.

The court also determined that supervised access by the Society was not feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the mother's proposed supervisor was inappropriate.

Access for the infant was therefore suspended, with virtual access for older siblings and a review clause for future face-to-face visits.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the resolution of an estate matter.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs after the respondent withdrew her notice of objection.

The respondent argued for no costs or a reduced amount.

The court found inappropriate conduct from both parties but determined the applicant was the more successful litigant.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court assessed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, a reduction from the applicant's claim.