Max Skrow

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating their franchise agreement.

The court noted that the agreement was set to expire in April 2024 with no automatic renewal clause.

Finding that an injunction would unfairly extend the agreement indefinitely pending litigation, and that the plaintiff could seek monetary damages, the court dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff lawyer sued the defendant client for unpaid legal fees and included privileged communications in the statement of claim.

The defendant moved to strike the privileged paragraphs, arguing he had not waived solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that a client's refusal to pay legal fees does not constitute an implied waiver of privilege.

However, the court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to include privileged information necessary to advance the claim.

To protect the privilege, the court ordered the file sealed.

The applicants were wholly successful in an application regarding the control of a non-profit organization.

They sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted the respondents' unjustified delays, failure to respond to settlement offers, and improper conduct in locking the applicants out of corporate accounts.

The court rejected the respondent's argument of inability to pay and awarded the applicants costs fixed at $45,000 all-inclusive.

The court issued a costs endorsement and corrigendum following the dismissal of the responding parties' motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court was informed of two unaccepted offers to settle made by one of the parties seeking costs.

The court also corrected an error regarding funds held as security for costs, clarifying they were solely for the benefit of one party.

The court increased the costs awarded to the party who made the offers to $22,500, finding the requested $35,000 disproportionate for a 1.5-hour motion.

A separate costs award of $7,500 was maintained for the other parties seeking costs.

The plaintiffs and the deceased Madan Sharma were involved in a joint venture to build and sell residential homes.

Following Sharma's death, disputes arose over the winding up of the joint venture, with both sides alleging overpayment of management fees and misappropriation of funds.

The court found that the defendants misappropriated $1,586,584.83 from the sale of a joint venture property by directing the proceeds to a non-joint venture corporation, and pierced the corporate veil to hold the individual defendants personally liable.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for misappropriation but found that the plaintiff's post-2008 record keeping was sufficiently unreliable to constitute oppression, ordering a formal accounting to determine the final state of accounts.

The tenant brought a motion for various relief against the landlord, including setting aside a distress sale and lease termination, and seeking relief from paying rent during COVID-19 lockdowns.

The court previously granted the tenant's requests regarding the termination and distress sale but required the tenant to pay post-NOI rent.

On the issue of costs, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success was divided and, given the tenant's continued significant default in rent payments, ordered that no costs be payable by either party.

The tenant filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The landlord attempted to terminate the commercial lease for non-payment of post-NOI rent and claimed to have completed a distress sale of the tenant's chattels just prior to the NOI filing.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the lease termination and the distraint, and sought relief from paying rent during the COVID-19 shutdown.

The court set aside the lease termination, finding the landlord acted precipitously without giving the tenant reasonable time to deliver promised rent cheques.

The court also set aside the distraint, finding the sale was not completed prior to the NOI and did not comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act.

However, the court held the tenant was not relieved from paying post-NOI rent due to the pandemic shutdown.