David Myers

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board based on rent arrears.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in law by denying an adjournment request, failing to properly consider relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjournment denial was a discretionary decision that did not raise a question of law, the LTB properly considered the relevant circumstances for eviction relief, and the reasons provided were adequate.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the parties’ written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought full recovery of $19,300.40, citing the appeal as unnecessary and the appellant’s arguments as unrelated to the application judge’s reasoning.

The appellant submitted that $5,000 would be reasonable and proportionate, noting their own bill of costs was $15,171.20.

The court found no basis for an elevated costs award but determined the appellant’s suggested amount was too low.

The respondents were awarded $11,500, all-inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Sa Yan and Royal LePage Signature Realty regarding the return of a $60,000 deposit following the termination of an assignment of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court upheld the application judge’s finding that the respondents, Christine Yui and Michelle Yui, properly exercised a lawyer approval condition to terminate the agreement and were entitled to the return of their deposit.

The court also declined to vary the order to include pre- and post-judgment interest, as the respondents had not brought a cross-appeal.

The court considered motions by the plaintiffs to keep their claim alive and by the defendants to dismiss for delay.

The action, commenced in 2016, had experienced significant periods of unexplained delay.

The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, and that the presumption of prejudice to the defendants had not been rebutted.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c).

The court determined costs for four motions previously heard in the proceeding.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the defendant Jain on a partial indemnity basis for a motion to admit further evidence, and on a substantial indemnity basis for motions regarding a Mareva injunction and Norwich order due to the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, including making and withdrawing unfounded allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff was also ordered to pay full indemnity costs to the defendant Wang for a mortgage validity motion, pursuant to the standard charge terms of the mortgage.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an existing shipping container as an accessory structure on a residential property.

The container was cladded in wood to resemble a traditional shed.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate use of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The Plaintiffs' motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order against Defendant Jain was adjourned sine die due to significant procedural missteps by Plaintiffs' counsel.

These missteps included scheduling a long motion on a short motion date, failing to serve all parties as required by Rule 37.07(1), and providing inadequate notice and unhyperlinked materials.

The court found the alleged urgency was self-created and declined an interim order.

Costs were awarded against the Plaintiffs in favour of the appearing Defendants.

The parties were directed to attend Triage Court to schedule a long motion and consider civil case management.