Mark Pedersen

This decision concerns a dispute over the ownership of a commercial property and business shares following the death of John Morrison.

The applicant, Nancy Morrison (as estate trustee), sought partition and sale of the property, while the respondent, Tomasz Gadomski, claimed he had purchased the estate’s interest in both the property and the business under a 2016 Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).

The court found that the parties intended a single agreement covering both the shares and the property, and that Gadomski had fulfilled his obligations.

The application for partition and sale was dismissed, and Gadomski was declared the sole owner of the property.

The Applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully securing the reinstatement of their commercial tenancy.

The court found the Respondent's conduct during the lease termination and litigation to be reprehensible and high-handed, justifying an elevated costs award.

Despite the Applicants not filing a Bill of Costs, the court fixed costs at $25,000, all inclusive, payable by the Respondent, considering the reasonableness of counsel's time, the significance of the issues, the Applicants' full success, and their reasonable offers to settle.

The applicant sought to validate an informal, unwitnessed document dated December 31, 2021, as a will or codicil of the deceased, Garnet Earl Rombough, under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had a formal will from 2012.

Respondents challenged the 2021 document, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, and forgery.

The court found the 2021 document authentic, made with testamentary capacity, and free from undue influence or fraud.

It determined that the 2021 document, read in conjunction with the 2012 will, represented the deceased's final testamentary intentions, acting as a codicil to the earlier will.

The application was granted, and both documents were admitted to probate.

The applicants, a tenant and its sole shareholder, sought reinstatement of their commercial lease after the respondent landlord locked them out.

The landlord alleged breaches related to staff conduct (public intoxication, nuisance) and purported to terminate the lease.

The court found that the landlord failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, rendering the termination unlawful.

Alternatively, the court would have granted relief from forfeiture under section 20(1) of the Act due to the disproportionate nature of the termination, the non-wilful breach, and the landlord's heavy-handed conduct.

The lease was declared to be in full force and effect, and the applicants were awarded damages equivalent to four months' rent.