Nadia Condotta

The parties requested corrections to an endorsement released on May 7, 2021.

The court issued an addendum to remove Chubb Insurance Company of Canada and Novex Insurance Company as parties to the applications, and to add a second file number to the citation.

A law firm brought an application for an interpleader order to pay funds held in escrow into court, while a condominium corporation brought a cross-application seeking a mandatory injunction to force the law firm to pay the funds to the City of Toronto for property tax arrears pursuant to a settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the law firm's application, finding it could not use interpleader rules to protect itself from a potential breach of its own undertaking.

The court also dismissed the condominium corporation's application, finding it inappropriate to proceed by way of application without demonstrating a proper legal basis for the requested injunctive relief.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out of its banquet hall business by the respondent landlord due to rent arrears accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the landlord had lulled the tenant into believing rent was reduced or in abeyance, and that the landlord's re-entry on October 19, 2020, violated the Protecting Small Businesses Act, 2020.

The court granted the application, ordering the landlord to restore possession and granting the tenant relief from forfeiture.

The applicants, farmers with multiple mortgages held by the late Leo Goodman, applied for a discharge of the mortgages, arguing they had been paid in full.

The parties disputed the outstanding balance due to poor record-keeping and an unresolved 2008 Farm Debt Mediation Act agreement.

The court determined four preliminary issues to assist the parties in reconciling the accounts: it found a 2008 Interim Agreement was an unenforceable agreement to agree, a $60,000 promissory note was unenforceable, the respondent failed to prove certain construction mortgage advances, and a $15,144 legal account was extinguished by the mediation agreement.

The court directed the parties to re-evaluate their positions based on these findings.

The tenant, a law firm, vacated its commercial premises and sought to sublet to a private school.

The landlord refused consent because the lease expressly prohibited use as a school.

The tenant stopped paying rent and brought an application declaring the refusal unreasonable, while the landlord moved for summary judgment for rental arrears.

The court found the landlord's refusal reasonable and granted summary judgment for the arrears, noting the landlord had no duty to mitigate since it had not terminated the lease.

The appellant bank appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 in damages for an allegedly improper power of sale.

The trial judge found the bank failed to provide proper notice under the Mortgages Act because it sent the notice of sale to the mortgaged property, knowing the mortgagors were out of the country.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 33(1) of the Mortgages Act, a mortgagee is entitled to serve the notice of sale at the specific address provided for service in the mortgage document, regardless of whether the mortgagee knows the mortgagor is living elsewhere.

The trial judgment was set aside.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligent legal advice, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff contended the limitation period did not commence until the full extent of legal costs was known.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered all material facts for the claim by November 2010, including the injury, its cause by the defendant's omission, and that a proceeding was an appropriate remedy.

Consequently, the action, commenced in May 2015, was well outside the limitation period and was dismissed.

The plaintiff purchased a commercial building from the defendant.

Prior to closing, the defendant provided a statutory declaration claiming uninterrupted use of an adjacent driveway without ever seeking permission.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the adjacent owner for a prescriptive easement but lost after discovering the defendant had previously sought permission via an unsigned 1987 agreement.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant for negligent misrepresentation to recover its legal costs from the unsuccessful easement action.

The Superior Court dismissed the action, finding that while the declaration contained false statements and the defendant owed a duty of care, the plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the misrepresentations because it would have continued the easement litigation based on its counsel's advice regardless of the 1987 agreement.

The parties, former real estate business partners, disputed the ownership of three commercial parking spaces.

The defendant had paid the entire purchase price, but legal title was registered to the plaintiff's corporation due to a mistaken belief about condominium ownership rules.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to buy the defendant's beneficial interest.

The court found no enforceable agreement existed, noting it would violate the Statute of Frauds.

Recognizing the defendant as the sole beneficial owner under a resulting trust, the court ordered the plaintiff to convey legal title to the defendant.