Michelle Theberge

This motion concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease between a pharmacy (applicant) and a medical centre (respondent) regarding rent calculation.

The applicant argued that rent should be based on the actual measured square footage of the premises, while the respondent contended it was a fixed amount regardless of space.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, including the parol evidence rule, to determine the parties' mutual objective intention.

The applicant also sought reimbursement for overpaid utility charges and the return of a security deposit.

The applicant and respondents, estate trustees for the deceased, both claimed entitlement to $51,462.56 held in court, representing the balance of a mortgage.

The deceased had previously sold a property to the applicant and taken back a mortgage.

Years later, the deceased and applicant signed an agreement fixing the mortgage balance, and subsequently, the deceased wrote 'paid' on the agreement and signed it before her lawyer.

The court found that the deceased intended to make an inter vivos gift of the mortgage balance to the applicant.

The court held that the execution of the addendum and its deposit with the solicitor constituted sufficient delivery to complete the gift, even without a registered discharge of the mortgage.

The applicant was entitled to the funds.

A non-party, 2501427 Ontario Limited, brought a motion for an injunction to prevent the closing of a real estate purchase and sale transaction initiated by the plaintiff, 1943237 Ontario Corporation, under a power of sale.

The moving party, which had purchased the defendants' shares, argued the notice of sale was defective and that they were misled.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctions from *RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)*.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour the moving party.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving parties sought an order requiring the responding party to post $35,000 as security for costs in a construction lien proceeding.

The court found that the threshold for a security for costs order under Rule 56.01 was met because a previous costs award remained unpaid and there was reason to believe the responding party lacked sufficient Ontario assets to satisfy future costs.

The responding party failed to demonstrate impecuniosity with detailed financial disclosure or that the action would be halted if security were ordered.

The court held that hardship alone was insufficient and that robust evidence of inability to raise funds was required.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount sought.