Richard An

This application involved a commercial landlord-tenant dispute following the termination of multiple leases.

The tenant claimed unlawful re-entry, unlawful retention of chattels, overpayment of hydro, business loss due to plumbing issues, defamation, and emotional distress.

The landlord counterclaimed for rent arrears, damages for non-repair, and loss of future rent.

The court found the landlord's re-entry lawful due to rent arrears and tenant repudiation.

However, the landlord's retention of the tenant's chattels was deemed unlawful, awarding the tenant $20,000.

The tenant was also awarded $1,161.23 for overpaid hydro.

The landlord was awarded $19,760 for rent arrears and $35,590 for damages due to the units' disrepair.

Other claims by both parties were dismissed.

Ultimately, the landlord was awarded a net judgment of $34,188.77.

The appellant, Kay Hon, appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent developer, Forest Hill Homes (Cornell Rouge) Limited, for failure to close on a home purchase.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding no misrepresentation by the developer's agent regarding agency, and that summary judgment should not have been granted while a third-party claim remained outstanding.

The Court of Appeal found no clear and palpable error in the factual finding regarding agency, noting the appellant's own evidence and the agreement confirmed the agent acted for the vendor.

The court also held that the main action and counterclaim were sufficiently distinct from the third-party claim to allow for summary judgment, and clarified that the motion judge's observations on the third-party claim were not binding findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Sivanesan Veerasingam, appealed his convictions for luring a person under 16 and procuring sexual services of a person under 18, and the dismissal of his entrapment application.

The charges stemmed from "Project Raphael," a police undercover operation where an officer posed as a 15-year-old on a website.

Text exchanges indicated the appellant's awareness of the minor's age.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction appeal, ruling that evidence from the entrapment hearing could not be used to challenge the initial conviction.

The court also dismissed the entrapment appeal, finding that the police scheme did not prevent the appellant from taking reasonable steps to verify age during communication, and the offence was complete upon communication, not at the hotel meeting.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to the Czech Republic pursuant to the Hague Convention after the respondent father removed the child to Canada without her consent.

The father initially opposed the return, claiming the child's habitual residence was Canada and that the child objected to returning.

An independent assessment revealed the child wished to return to the Czech Republic.

The court found the child was habitually resident in the Czech Republic, the mother had custody rights, and the removal was wrongful.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the Czech Republic.