Nipuni Panamaldeniya

The plaintiff hotel owner sued the defendant condominium corporation for historical overpayments of shared electricity costs spanning 2006 to 2015.

The overpayments resulted from a conversion error in an Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the plaintiff's share.

The court found the defendant was unjustly enriched and ordered repayment of $730,058.99.

The court rejected the defendant's limitation period defence, finding the error was not reasonably discoverable until a consultant identified it in 2017.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for equitable set-off regarding alleged underpayments in other areas.

The applicants and respondents were shareholders in a corporation that acquired a hotel and redevelopment project.

Following a finding of oppression against the respondent, the corporation was ordered to be liquidated.

In this trial to resolve disputes over the distribution of liquidation proceeds, the respondent claimed entitlement to development fees, hotel management fees, reimbursement of expenses, and repayment of shareholder loans including advances made to a subsidiary.

The court dismissed the claims for development and management fees, finding no written agreement and a failure to comply with the disclosure requirements for self-interested contracts under s. 132 of the Business Corporations Act.

The court allowed certain business expenses while characterizing others as loan repayments, and held that it was just and equitable to include advances made to the subsidiary in the calculation of the respondent's shareholder loan.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a commercial property after an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to close on the agreed-upon date and did not secure the required mortgage assumption.

The court found triable issues existed regarding whether time remained of the essence following multiple extensions and whether the mortgage assumption would have been approved.

Balancing the equities, the court granted the CPL, noting the property's uniqueness to the plaintiff's development plan and that damages would not be a satisfactory remedy.