Natasha Carew

Following a trial of an oppression application and breach of contract action regarding a real estate development project, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that neither party achieved substantial success, as the applicant failed to prove damages for failure to fund the project, while the respondents were found to have acted oppressively.

Given the divided success and the fact that both parties' versions of events were largely rejected, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant landlord brought a motion for leave to place its application on the trial list or restore it, to avoid administrative dismissal for delay after five years.

The underlying dispute involved a commercial lease.

The Master found that the application, which had been converted into a trial of issues, should not be mechanically subjected to the same dismissal rules as an ordinary action.

Applying the principles from Carioca's, the Master granted the motion to allow the application to proceed, subject to the applicant paying a previous costs award and the parties scheduling a hearing date.

Following a finding of oppression, the court determined the appropriate process and parameters for valuing the respondent's shares in a real estate development corporation to effect a buyout by the applicant.

The court declined to appoint separate valuators, instead directing a reference to a master to determine the share price.

The court set the valuation date as the date of the oppression decision, rather than an earlier date proposed by the applicant, and provided guidance on specific adjustments including equalization of costs and the treatment of the property's lapsed site plan approval.