3 total
A landlord's motion to terminate a commercial lease for alleged insurance deficiencies was dismissed.
The respondent landlord brought a motion to set aside an interlocutory injunction and terminate a commercial lease based on alleged deficiencies in the tenant's insurance coverage.
The tenant had been granted an interlocutory injunction in April 2025 preventing lease termination, subject to compliance with insurance requirements within 20 days of receiving a Notice of Default.
The landlord served a Notice of Default identifying thirteen alleged deficiencies.
By the time of the motion hearing, the parties had resolved most issues, but the landlord continued to assert five deficiencies remained.
The court reviewed the insurance certificate and found that the tenant had substantially complied with all insurance requirements of the lease.
The motion was dismissed.
The court continued a Mareva injunction against the defendants after finding a strong prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation.
This decision concerns a comeback motion on a Mareva injunction originally granted against Alykhan Karmali and AK&H Ltd. The plaintiff, Latif Nanji, alleges that he was induced to invest millions of dollars in a business venture based on fraudulent misrepresentations by the defendants.
The court reviews the background of the investments, the lack of supporting documentation, and the use of funds by the defendants.
The court finds that the plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case for fraudulent misrepresentation and that the risk of dissipation of assets justifies the continuation of the Mareva injunction.
Interlocutory injunction granted to prevent commercial eviction due to an unparticularized notice of default.
The Applicant, NP Health Clinic Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondent, 2456192 Ontario Inc., from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it for alleged failure to obtain adequate liability insurance as required by the lease.
The court found that the Landlord’s Notice of Default did not comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act because it failed to specify the particular deficiencies in the Tenant’s insurance.
The court granted the interlocutory injunction, subject to the Landlord serving a compliant Notice of Default and the Tenant being given an opportunity to remedy any specified deficiencies.
