Leora Wise

The defendants, Kyrollos Maseh and Marina Tanious, brought a motion seeking to discharge the plaintiff's lien and dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's non-compliance with a prior order regarding undertakings and costs.

Prior to the hearing, the plaintiff complied with some aspects, and the parties resolved the substantive motion, leaving only costs to be determined.

The court, applying principles from Muskala v. Sitarski, declined to award the moving defendants their claimed costs of the motion, finding them excessive and largely attributable to costs of the action rather than the motion itself.

The court noted the plaintiff's breach necessitated the motion but also found the defendants' approach to reviewing disorganized answers contributed to their claimed costs.

The final order was no costs for the motion, without prejudice to the defendants claiming those costs as costs of the action.

Following a successful motion for an urgent interlocutory injunction against picketing union members, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $110,000.

The defendants argued for no or nominal costs, citing labour injunction jurisprudence.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,000 plus disbursements, finding that while the picketers' conduct was aggressive and crossed the line, it did not warrant the judicial disapproval reflected in substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that her commercial lease was valid and binding, and for an injunction restraining the respondent landlord from interfering with her business.

The landlord had engaged in a campaign of harassment, including destroying common areas and removing the air conditioning unit, in an attempt to force the tenant to vacate so he could carry out construction.

The court found the landlord's allegations of breach to be spurious, dismissed his counter-application for fundamental breach, and granted the tenant's application, ordering specific performance of the lease and requiring the landlord to complete outstanding repairs.

The applicant sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the respondent from evicting her from a commercial rental unit after the original hearing date was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a case conference, the parties agreed to a timetable to prepare the application for adjudication.

On consent, the respondent agreed not to take any steps to evict the applicant while she complied with the timetable, rendering the motion for interim relief unnecessary.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the defendants, Aplus General Contractors Corporation and The Regional Municipality of Peel, for an order requiring the plaintiff, 2041094 Ontario Inc. operating as TLN Masonry, to post security for costs.

The court found TLN's conduct in delaying the motion and opposing it without merit to be unreasonable, justifying an award of costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

However, the final award was limited to the actual fees charged by Aplus's counsel, which were less than their substantial indemnity rates.

The court awarded Aplus $15,459.65 in costs.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor in a construction lien action.

The motion was brought after the action had been set down for trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant had unreasonably delayed and failed to seek leave under the Construction Lien Act and Rule 48.04.

The court found that the delay was primarily caused by the plaintiff's counsel's failure to cooperate in scheduling the motion.

The court granted leave to bring the motion and ordered the plaintiff to post $27,000 in security for costs, finding that the plaintiff had insufficient assets, failed to prove impecuniosity, and failed to show its claim had a good chance of success.

Franchisee applicants sought declarations that their franchise agreements had been terminated due to fundamental breaches by the franchisor entities and that restrictive covenants were unenforceable.

The applicants alleged the franchisor failed to maintain the franchise system, including advertising, training, approved suppliers, branded materials, and operational support.

The court held these failures constituted fundamental breaches terminating the franchise agreements.

As a result, the non‑competition clauses were declared void, and the court ordered the waiver of landlord consent requirements to permit assignment of certain commercial leases under s. 23 of the Commercial Tenancies Act.

Costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis were awarded to the applicants.

The applicant corporation sought a stay of the respondent’s motion to set aside a 2007 judgment and requested security for costs due to the respondent’s failure to pay prior costs awards.

The respondent argued the costs were not payable by her and opposed security for costs.

The court found that prior orders imposed joint and several liability for the costs and that the respondent had failed to comply with those orders for several years while residing outside Ontario.

The court held that a party should not be permitted to pursue further relief while ignoring outstanding costs obligations.

The proceeding was stayed unless the respondent paid the outstanding costs and posted security for costs.

A co-owner of a condominium property brought a motion for partition and sale under the Partition Act after the other registered co-owner failed to participate in the proceeding and was noted in default.

The evidence showed the moving party paid the down payment contributions attributable to himself and others, made all mortgage and carrying payments, and managed the property, while the responding co-owner made no financial contributions.

The court held that tenants in common have a prima facie right to compel partition or sale absent vexatious or oppressive conduct and ordered the sale of the property.

The court further ordered reimbursement to the moving party from the sale proceeds for down payment contributions, carrying costs, and a loan made to the responding co-owner.

Remaining proceeds were directed to be paid into court pending potential claims by other contributors.