Max Libman

Following the granting of the applicant's application and dismissal of the respondent's application, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court found the applicant's claimed amount of $36,293.96 to be reasonable, noting the complexity of the matter and the general principle that an applicant's costs are often higher than a respondent's.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the requested amount.

The applicant tenant sought to enforce a commercial lease against the respondent, the new owner of the property.

The respondent sought a declaration that the proposed use of the property as a recreational facility contravened the zoning by-law and requested an injunction to prevent its operation.

The court held that the lease was binding on the new owner, as it had notice of the lease.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the lease was frustrated by the zoning by-law, finding no current breach and noting that a rezoning application could be made.

The court granted the applicant's requests for declarations enforcing the lease and dismissed the respondent's application for an injunction as premature.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiff regarding a default judgment arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought to enforce the default judgment through garnishment and sheriff's sale.

The court found that a binding settlement agreement existed on essential terms, that the defendants had not breached or resiled from the agreement, and that the timing of collateral mortgage registration was not an essential term.

The court granted the motion to enforce the settlement, cancelled the scheduled property sale, and ordered specific performance of the settlement terms with deadlines for mortgage registration and final payment.

The defendants, Dentons Canada LLP and Philip Rimer, brought a third-party claim against various individuals and entities, including other lawyers and advisors, seeking contribution and indemnity in a professional negligence action.

The third parties brought Rule 21 motions to strike the third-party claim, arguing that they acted as agents for the plaintiff and therefore any negligence on their part would be attributable to the plaintiff, precluding a third-party claim.

The court struck the claims against one director (Wang) and the escrow agent, finding them doomed to fail based on agency and contractual principles.

However, the court allowed the claims against the other third-party advisors and lawyers to proceed, finding that they fell into a category of non-agency advisory roles where the plaintiff might not be held contributorily responsible for their actions.

Leave to amend was granted to particularize the claims against certain third parties.