Vedran Simkic

This is a motion for approval of a class action settlement concerning incidents of glass falling from balconies at Festival Tower, a condominium in Toronto.

The representative plaintiffs sought court approval for the settlement agreement, appointment of a claims administrator, approval of the distribution program, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court granted the orders sought, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the comparatively minor loss of balcony use compared to similar cases.

The court considered the risks of litigation, including novel claims for loss of use and enjoyment, and the challenges in establishing liability and aggregate damages.

The appellant tenants, who own homes on land leased from the respondent, challenged occupancy limitations in their long-term leases.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applied and that the limitations were a substantial interference.

The Divisional Court reversed, holding that s. 22 of the Act did not invalidate agreed-upon provisions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the occupancy limitations were inconsistent with the Act's scheme of security of tenure and were therefore void under s. 4, regardless of the parties' agreement.

The defendants, comprising law firms and solicitors, brought two summary judgment motions seeking to dismiss professional negligence claims brought against them by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence for failing to advise them of their rescission rights under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the scope of the retainers, the duty of care owed by the defendants, and causation.

The court emphasized the need for a trial to assess witness credibility and the necessity of expert evidence in professional negligence claims, and declined to grant partial summary judgment due to the interconnectedness and complexity of the claims.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement that purportedly resolved the plaintiffs' oppression claims arising from a corporate restructuring.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the agreement was unconscionable and induced by misrepresentations regarding the inclusion of a critical patent licence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual matrix was complex, credibility issues were prominent, and it was premature to grant summary judgment or partial summary judgment before examinations for discovery had been completed.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim appealed a Master's order granting the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim leave to issue a third party claim against CBC and CBRE.

The appellants argued that the third party claim for contribution and indemnity was legally untenable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly applied the low threshold akin to a motion to strike, and properly concluded that the third party claim was supported by Rules 29.01(b) and (c) based on independent claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.

The appellants, two cottagers' associations, appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that individual cottage sewage systems were subject to the Building Code Act rather than the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The central issue was whether the relevant "lot or parcel of land" for determining regulatory jurisdiction was the five registered parcels owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority or the individual cottage lots described in leases.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that "lot or parcel of land" means land that is legally recognized for municipal and planning law purposes and for which title can be conveyed.

Since the individual cottage lots were not formally severed or registered, the five registered parcels constituted the relevant "lot or parcel of land," bringing the collective sewage systems (exceeding 10,000 litres per day) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment.

Tadiem Inc., as plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim, sought leave under Rule 29.02(1.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and CBRE Limited.

The proposed third-party claim was in response to Allied's counterclaim alleging intentional interference with economic relations and defamation, based on statements Tadiem allegedly made to CBC and CBRE during lease negotiations.

Allied opposed the motion, arguing the claim was fatally flawed and untimely.

The court granted leave, finding no undue prejudice to Allied and that the third-party claim was tenable, arising from the same incidents and raising overlapping factual issues, thus preventing multiplicity of proceedings and risk of inconsistent findings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his claim that he was a tenant entitled to protections under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The respondent had changed the locks on the unit and disposed of the appellant's belongings.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's finding that the appellant was not a legal tenant and therefore not entitled to tenant protections.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $300.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Divisional Court order dismissing their appeals from Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that terminated their tenancies.

The moving parties were tenants in a rental property subject to demolition and redevelopment.

The responding party provided them with temporary relocation units at reduced rent pending completion of replacement units, with the understanding they would vacate once the replacement building was ready.

The moving parties refused to vacate and sought relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious question to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also applied the clean hands doctrine, noting the moving parties had acted in bad faith by refusing to honor their relocation agreement.

A residential tenant sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the landlord from allocating units in a redeveloped apartment building until alleged breaches of agreements and Ontario Municipal Board decisions were resolved.

The moving party argued that the relocation and unit selection process violated a section 37 Planning Act agreement and prior representations, and would cause irreparable harm.

The court applied the test from RJR MacDonald v Canada (AG) and held that the tenant failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The tenant also failed to provide an undertaking as to damages as required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed and costs were awarded to the landlord.