Lukasz (Luke) Szymura

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant guarantor for unpaid rent and damages after the tenant (Mother's Pizza) defaulted on a commercial lease and filed for bankruptcy.

The defendant argued the tenant's failure was due to the landlord's negligence regarding plumbing and pest issues, and sought set-off for these damages and the value of abandoned assets.

The court found the plaintiff proved most of its damage claims, including rent, real estate commissions, utilities, cleaning, and legal fees.

The defendant's set-off arguments were dismissed, as the lease placed responsibility for maintenance and cleanliness on the tenant, and the tenant's financial issues predated the alleged landlord failures.

The court also found the abandoned assets had little value and, per the lease, were deemed abandoned without compensation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $300,000 promissory note executed by the defendant.

The defendant admitted to borrowing the funds and failing to repay the note, but raised several defences, including lack of consideration, reliance on third-party misrepresentations, and a pending arbitration under a related shareholders' agreement.

The court rejected these defences, finding no material facts in dispute and that the obligation to pay the note was independent of the shareholders' agreement.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amount plus prejudgment interest, with credit given for interest payments previously made by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $300,000 promissory note executed by the defendant.

The defendant raised several defences, including lack of consideration, reliance on misrepresentations, and that the matter should be delayed pending arbitration under a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The court found no material facts in dispute, rejecting the defendant's arguments but granting credit for certain interest payments as agreed by the plaintiff.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amount plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff sought payment on a promissory note and moved for summary judgment.

The defendant alleged breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation by the plaintiff's principal, Dr. Takhar, for failing to disclose disciplinary actions.

Both parties brought motions for further answers to undertakings and questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits related to the pending summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion for further answers from the plaintiff, finding the questions irrelevant to the defence theory.

The court largely dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further answers from the defendant, also finding most questions irrelevant, but ordered the defendant to fulfill one undertaking regarding the use of loan funds.

In this custody and child support trial, the father sought sole custody of the ten-year-old child, alleging the mother's unstable lifestyle involving numerous moves and relationships had harmed the child.

The mother, who had been the primary caregiver since birth, opposed the change and argued the father had been an inconsistent and uninvolved parent.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to conduct a clinical investigation.

The investigator's final report recommended a change of custody due to the mother's continued transience, exposure of the child to adult conflict with her partner, and concerns about the child's school attendance and stability.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding it was in the child's best interests to provide stability and prevent further disruption.

The court also addressed retroactive child support, finding the father had underpaid support and imputed income to the mother for ongoing support obligations.

The applicant mother sought costs following a successful motion to change a separation agreement regarding child support and parenting arrangements.

The respondent father failed to accept two settlement offers made by the applicant and the matter proceeded to hearing.

The court awarded partial costs to the applicant, considering the settlement offers, the respondent's financial circumstances, and the need to balance the costs award with the respondent's obligations to support the children.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $2,500 in costs at $50 per month, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.