Newton Wong

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a lien against the respondent unit owner for unpaid common expenses.

On the eve of the hearing, the respondent paid the outstanding common expenses and interest, leaving only the issue of legal costs to be resolved.

The condominium sought to include its full legal costs of $56,327.33 in the certificate of lien pursuant to section 85(3) of the Condominium Act.

The court found that the respondent's history of non-payment, her meritless defence and counterclaim, and her failure to make meaningful settlement efforts justified the full amount.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the full $56,327.33 in legal costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's Rule 21 motion, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the motion was ill-conceived.

The court held that while the motion was premised on an erroneous view of the law, the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $9,500.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking an order for the payment of a volume bonus commission prior to trial in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought leave to introduce extensive affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the employment agreement in light of alleged code of conduct breaches raised a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The court noted the motion was effectively an improper attempt to bypass the procedural requirements of a Rule 20 summary judgment motion, including mandatory attendance at Civil Practice Court, and warned against the risks of partial summary judgment.

The plaintiff, having been wholly successful at a three-day trial, sought costs.

The plaintiff had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was less than the damages awarded at trial.

The defendants failed to provide costs submissions.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $36,102.54.

The court also ordered the release of $23,000 previously paid into court by the plaintiff as security for costs.

A commercial landlord sued a tenant and indemnifier for unpaid rent after the tenant abandoned leased industrial premises before the end of a fixed‑term lease.

The tenant alleged fundamental breach by the landlord based on inadequate security following multiple break‑ins and failure to pay a tenant improvement allowance, and counterclaimed for alleged lost business profits.

The court held the landlord had no contractual obligation to enhance security measures within the tenant’s premises and had fulfilled its obligations under the lease, including payment of the inducement once conditions were met.

The tenant’s abandonment constituted a clear breach of the lease, and the landlord had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its damages by re‑leasing the premises.

The counterclaim for speculative business losses was dismissed for lack of evidentiary support and absence of landlord negligence.