Nedko Petkov

The appeal challenged Ontario recognition and enforcement of a German default judgment, relying principally on an arbitration-clause public-policy defence.

The court held public policy did not bar recognition where appellants failed to raise the arbitration point in the German proceeding and dismissed the appeal.

This case involved consolidated applications seeking declaratory relief regarding lease renewal options.

Brewers Retail Inc. (Landlord) and Hasty Market Corp. (Tenant) disputed the number of five-year renewal options granted in a 2009 lease renewal, with the Tenant asserting two options and the Landlord one.

The Tenant also raised promissory estoppel.

The court found that the agreement unambiguously provided for only one five-year renewal option, not two, based on the written record and the Landlord's waiver letter.

The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that no unambiguous promise was made by the Landlord and the Tenant failed to establish detrimental reliance.

Promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable to create new rights not agreed upon.

The applicant tenant moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the new owner of the property from demolishing or renovating the premises, claiming the former landlord breached a right of first refusal (ROFR) in the lease.

The respondents moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and for security for costs.

The court dismissed the injunction motion and discharged the CPL, finding no serious issue to be tried because the tenant had signed an Estoppel Certificate confirming no material default by the landlord and postponing its interest to the new mortgage.

The respondents' motion for security for costs was dismissed as they failed to show the tenant had insufficient assets.

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1633 (TSCC 1633) applied for a declaration that Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1809 (TSCC 1809) was responsible for sharing the costs of operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing a shared laneway.

TSCC 1633 advanced claims based on unjust enrichment, a common law obligation for easement maintenance, and the oppression remedy under section 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court dismissed the application, finding no common law obligation for the dominant tenement owner to maintain an easement for the benefit of the servient tenement.

It further held that the grant of the easement itself constituted a juristic reason, precluding a claim for unjust enrichment.

Regarding the oppression remedy, the court concluded that TSCC 1633's expectation of cost-sharing was not objectively reasonable, as the condominium declarations and disclosure statements did not provide for such an agreement, aligning with the principles established in Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1272 v. Beach Development (Phase II) Corporation.

Following dismissal of the main action and the third party claim, the court determined costs among the parties.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s costs should be reduced due to inadequate documentary production and the calling of allegedly irrelevant witnesses.

The court rejected most of these objections but applied modest deductions for fairness.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering the complexity of the expert engineering evidence, the court applied a 65% partial indemnity factor rather than the typical 60%.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both the defendant and the third party.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for damages after a retaining wall on the plaintiff's property collapsed.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently approved the wall's design and failed to follow a third-party engineer's recommendation to conduct a complete visual inspection.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an agreement that would create a duty of care regarding the wall's design.

Furthermore, the municipality's prior inspection and repair of the wall constituted a gratuitous undertaking, and there was no detrimental reliance by the plaintiff to ground liability.