Lisa M. Constantine

The court considered an application by Place Laurier Limited for leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding the fair market value of land subject to a ground lease.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the correct legal test for determining the highest and best use of the land and did not provide sufficient reasons for the valuation.

The court found that while some issues raised extricable questions of law, the arbitrator had not erred in law and provided sufficient reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

Parc-IX Limited applied to set aside an arbitral award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by failing to consider legal regulations (Rental Replacement Unit policy) affecting property valuation under a ground lease.

Manufacturers Life Insurance Company cross-applied to enforce the award.

The court dismissed Parc-IX's application, finding the arbitrator did consider the regulations but determined they did not apply on the facts, acting within jurisdiction.

The application to set aside the costs award was also dismissed, affirming that costs are determined on the facts of each case.

These supplementary reasons address the costs arising from a refusals motion where The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company ("Manulife") was entirely successful.

Manulife sought $9,500.00 in partial indemnity costs.

Parc-IX Limited ("Parc-IX") argued the costs were excessive and requested a set-off for its own prior refusals motion.

The Master found Manulife's requested costs reasonable given the motion's complexity and extent.

A set-off of $4,500.00 was granted for Parc-IX's less complex motion.

Parc-IX was ordered to pay Manulife $5,000.00 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, by October 31, 2018, to be paid forthwith.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer refused questions during cross-examinations of its witnesses, Nolan Rodrigues and Georges Gantcheff.

These cross-examinations arose from two applications concerning alleged breaches of a 99-year ground lease by the respondent, involving structural problems, municipal and fire code violations, and health and safety concerns in an apartment building.

The court applied principles governing the scope of cross-examination, emphasizing relevance to the issues in the pending applications or matters raised in affidavits, and proportionality.

The Master found all refused questions relevant and proportional, ordering the respondent to answer them.

The plaintiff, Schroeder & Schroeder Inc. (SSI), and the defendants, Stewardship Ontario (SO) and Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance Inc. (CSSA), brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

SSI claimed damages for breach of the Copyright Act, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and breach of contract related to the sub-licensing of an enterprise information software system (EIS System) it helped implement for SO.

SSI asserted intellectual property rights in the system.

The defendants sought dismissal of the action, arguing SSI had no intellectual property rights in the EIS System, which they contended belonged to SAP.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the issues, particularly regarding SSI's copyright in the EIS System and the technical aspects of its configuration, required a trial and could not be resolved on the existing evidence.

A credibility issue regarding discoverability of the sub-license also precluded summary judgment on the limitations defence.