Michael Corbett

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) that denied minor variances for a lot severance.

The moving party missed the deadline to perfect the motion by over a year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that while there was a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was extensive without a satisfactory cumulative explanation, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not raise questions of law of general importance, and the respondent would suffer prejudice from the ongoing delay.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that her commercial lease was valid and binding, and for an injunction restraining the respondent landlord from interfering with her business.

The landlord had engaged in a campaign of harassment, including destroying common areas and removing the air conditioning unit, in an attempt to force the tenant to vacate so he could carry out construction.

The court found the landlord's allegations of breach to be spurious, dismissed his counter-application for fundamental breach, and granted the tenant's application, ordering specific performance of the lease and requiring the landlord to complete outstanding repairs.

The applicants brought an application and a motion for an injunction against their neighbours and the Town of Oakville regarding the construction of a retaining wall between their properties.

The applicants abandoned the injunction motion shortly before the hearing.

At the hearing of the application, the court found that the material facts regarding liability, encroachment, and damages were highly disputed and could not be resolved on a paper record.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the matter to proceed to trial.

The applicants were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs for the abandoned injunction motion.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to recover debts arising from factoring agreements and related guarantees after discovering that several assigned accounts receivable were fabricated or previously paid.

The court applied the summary judgment framework articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin and determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence established defaults under the agreements, triggering the lender’s right to immediate repayment and enforcement of its security interests.

A counterclaim alleging wrongful enforcement and interference with a business relationship was dismissed for lack of proof.

Summary judgment was granted for the debt claim and costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis.