Nicolas Canizares

The parties have been engaged in ongoing litigation regarding a commercial lease.

The tenant and its principal brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to introduce fresh evidence, alleging the landlord fraudulently omitted pre-lease emails that would have altered prior court decisions regarding rent arrears and construction allowances.

The landlord brought a motion to terminate the lease for non-payment of rent.

The court dismissed the tenant's motion, finding the proposed fresh evidence inadmissible as it constituted pre-contractual negotiations that did not clearly contradict the landlord's evidence or the final lease terms.

The court granted the landlord's motion to terminate the lease due to the tenant's ongoing default, but stayed the termination pending a companion oppression application, conditional on the payment of ongoing rent into trust.

Following a decision on commercial lease applications, two telecommunications companies (the Rooftop Tenants) sought their costs as deemed intervenors.

The Rooftop Tenants had successfully argued for continued access to their rooftop equipment through the tenant's premises.

The court found that the Rooftop Tenants were entitled to partial indemnity costs because their property interests were directly impacted and they were successful on the merits.

The court fixed costs at $20,000 for Rogers and $15,000 for Freedom Mobile, apportioning liability 75% to the tenant and 25% to the landlord.

Following an endorsement determining the underlying application, the court considered written submissions on costs.

Both parties had served offers to settle, but neither offer produced a result more favourable than the court’s decision, so Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not affect the costs analysis.

The successful applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling just over $31,500 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The respondent requested an opportunity to have the applicants’ bill assessed but provided no substantive basis to challenge the hourly rates, hours worked, or disbursements.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the fairness considerations articulated in Boucher v Public Accountants Council (Ontario), the court found the claimed costs reasonable and awarded the requested amount.

The applicants and respondent are neighbours involved in a boundary dispute over a shared driveway and a triangular piece of land.

The respondent claimed possessory title to the triangle through adverse possession, while the applicants sought a declaration of ownership and the removal of fences and interlocking brick installed by the respondent on their property.

The court found that the respondent's adverse possession claim failed because the previous registered owner had interrupted the exclusive possession by entering the land to cut down trees before the 10-year statutory period expired and prior to the property's conversion to the Land Titles system.

The court granted the applicants' request for a declaration of ownership and ordered the respondent to remove the trespassing structures.