Michael A. Currie

The applicant, Icona Hospitality Inc., sought an order under s. 61(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to delete restrictive covenants from the title to its land.

The covenants restricted the site's use solely to a hotel.

Icona proposed a mixed-use high-rise redevelopment, arguing the covenants were spent or unsuitable due to changed planning policies and the area's designation as an Urban Growth Centre.

The respondents, beneficiaries of the covenants, opposed the application, citing potential negative impacts on their own development plans and market competition.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Icona failed to demonstrate that the covenants were spent or so unsuitable as to be of no value, or that their assertion by the respondents would be vexatious.

The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under s. 61(1) must be exercised with caution and an order will seldom be granted if prejudicial to the adjacent landowner, rejecting a simple balancing of monetary interests.

The appellants (tenant and its successor) repudiated a commercial lease for an industrial property owned by the respondent.

The respondent was forced to sell the property and sued for damages.

The trial judge awarded $1,277,000 in damages, including lost rental profits and lost capital appreciation.

The appellants appealed, arguing the sale at fair market value fully mitigated damages and that lost capital appreciation was too remote.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that damages for lost capital appreciation were too remote under the Hadley v. Baxendale test, that the property was sold at fair market value, and that damages should be calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis based on the 2013 sale price with appropriate deductions for mitigation.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support and an advance on equalization from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing the wife could be self-supporting and that the funds should be restricted due to her alcoholism.

The court found a prima facie case for spousal support entitlement and ordered mid-range support of $3,345 monthly.

The court also ordered the release of the home sale proceeds to the wife, finding the husband's withholding of the funds to be unconscionable.

At a case management conference, the plaintiffs sought costs against the defendant condominium corporation for the late production of over 4,600 pages of documents.

The late production necessitated vacating a scheduled mediation and modifying the case management timetable.

The court found that the defendant's breach of the court-ordered timetable resulted in foreseeable delay and wasted costs.

The plaintiffs were awarded $1,500 in costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiff, a shell company representing substantial commercial creditors, conceded it lacked sufficient assets to cover the defendants' costs if unsuccessful in three complex commercial actions seeking over $150 million in damages.

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate impecuniosity.

The defendants sought over $10 million in security for costs.

The court, finding the merits of the underlying claims neutral for the purpose of the motion, determined it was fair and just for the plaintiff to post security.

An initial aggregate sum of $1.6 million was ordered to be paid into court, staged across the three actions, with further amounts to be determined later.

This motion primarily concerned temporary parenting arrangements for the parties' almost 3-year-old daughter and associated child support.

The applicant sought temporary sole custody and child support, while the respondent sought interim joint custody and shared parenting, arguing against child support.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" and "maximum contact" principles, determining that the applicant's asserted "status quo" was not determinative as it was unilaterally created post-separation.

The court found no relevant past conduct issues impacting parenting ability.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a six-year marriage.

The husband sought a declaration of resulting trust over three properties registered solely in the wife's name, as well as funds in a joint bank account.

The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted for the properties, granting the husband a beneficial half-interest in each.

The court also found the joint bank account funds were jointly owned.

The court resolved disputes over the valuation of the husband's business shares at the date of marriage, preferring the wife's expert valuator, and determined the value of various disputed chattels, including tools and an engagement ring.

The husband's claim for an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act was dismissed.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment to the husband.

The accused pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer, TD Canada Trust, of $237,156.44 over a 42-month period while employed as a loans officer.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment; the defence sought 6 months.

The court imposed 6 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation with conditions including 150 hours of community service.

A restitution order was made for the full amount defrauded.

No DNA order was imposed.

The applicant husband appealed a spousal support order that required him to pay support for approximately eleven years before it was reviewable.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the duration excessive and an error in principle given the respondent wife's age, education, and employment history.

The court varied the order to a time-limited duration of three years at $700 per month to promote economic self-sufficiency.