N. Schernitzki

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs against a commercial tenant and landlord following a consent compliance order regarding severe noise issues from a restaurant.

The court held that the consent order did not preclude the applicant from seeking its additional actual costs under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.

Finding that the landlord and tenant breached the declaration and rules, the court awarded the applicant $87,810.09 in costs, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.

Following competing procedural motions, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had been successful on both motions, obtaining an order that her action proceed while the opposing application was stayed and all claims asserted by counterclaim.

The responding party argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge or limited due to the procedural nature of the motions.

The court held that costs should follow the event and rejected arguments that the applicant’s timing in commencing the action justified depriving her of costs.

Applying Rule 57 considerations of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The parties, who are shareholders in corporations operating a private school, commenced competing proceedings.

The applicant commenced an application seeking a buyout of his shares or the sale of the school's assets.

The respondent commenced an action seeking a determination of the parties' rights by a jury.

The applicant moved to strike the respondent's statement of claim or stay her action, while the respondent moved to stay the application.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not frivolous.

The court granted the respondent's motion, staying the application and directing the applicant to assert his claims by way of counterclaim in the action, preserving the respondent's substantive right to a jury trial.

The tenant applied for declarations that the landlord’s termination of a commercial lease was unlawful and that the tenant was entitled to re-enter the premises.

After the fixed lease term expired, the tenant remained in possession due to delays relocating a medical clinic caused by regulatory inspections.

The landlord changed the locks and removed the tenant’s property, asserting that the lease had expired and vacant possession was required for a new tenant.

The court held that the lease’s overholding clause created a month-to-month tenancy when the tenant remained in possession after expiry.

Because the landlord had not provided proper notice to terminate the month-to-month tenancy and did not comply with the lease’s notice provisions, the landlord breached the lease by re-entering and removing the tenant’s property.