Obaidul Hoque

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a lower court order.

The motion was brought six days after the deadline.

The court applied the four-factor test for granting an extension of time: intention to appeal within the period, reasonable explanation for delay, arguable merits, and lack of prejudice to the responding parties.

The court found that the moving parties had a strong contemplation of appeal, a short and reasonable delay, and arguable issues regarding beneficial interests in the property.

No prejudice was found as the original order for sale was not automatically stayed.

The extension was granted on strict terms, including deadlines for filing and perfecting the appeal, and expedited hearing.

Despite granting the extension, the court awarded costs to the responding parties due to deficiencies in the moving parties' motion materials.

This decision concerns the award of costs following a successful application for specific performance of a real estate transaction.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $108,000.

The respondents argued the costs were excessive and that they lacked the means to pay.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct throughout the litigation warranted such a sanction.

The judge cited the respondents' actions in raising baseless issues, causing delay and friction, the asymmetrical importance of the issues to the parties, and the advancement of unproved allegations of dishonesty as key factors justifying the award.

The appellants brought a motion to stay a judgment granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for their commercial property.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay: serious question, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

The court found the serious question threshold was met, acknowledged the irreparable harm to the appellants' business, and determined the balance of convenience favoured the appellants if the appeal was expedited.

The motion for a stay was granted, contingent on an expedited appeal schedule, and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property needed for a land assembly development.

The respondents repudiated the agreement, arguing that the wife was coerced into signing and did not sign all portions of the document.

The court found that a binding agreement was formed, rejecting the coercion claims as unsupported and finding the signatures sufficient.

The court granted specific performance, holding that the property was unique to the applicant's development plans and damages would be inadequate.

The applicant's application for the return of tools and equipment was dismissed.

The parties were unable to agree on costs, and the respondent sought $8,768.80 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful and entitled to costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amount to reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, fixing costs at $7,000 payable by the applicant.

The applicant, a construction company, brought an urgent application for the return of tools and equipment from the respondent's property, a declaration that the construction contract was void, and damages.

The court dismissed the request for the return of property, finding the applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for ownership and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also determined the matter was not suitable to proceed as an application due to material facts in dispute and the existence of a parallel action commenced by the respondent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to the applicant to file a defence and counterclaim in the ongoing action.

The Tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., sought partial indemnity costs after successfully applying under s. 23 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, where the Landlord, Eli Messica, had unreasonably withheld consent to a lease assignment.

The Tenant requested $18,417.86, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Landlord opposed, arguing the Tenant's lawyer's time was excessive and proposing a reduced award of $10,356.45.

The court found the Tenant's lawyer's hourly rate modest and the time expended reasonable for an important matter, ultimately awarding the Tenant the full requested costs.

The tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., applied for a court order determining that the landlord, Eli Messica, unreasonably withheld consent to assign a commercial lease to Moksha Enterprise Ltd. The landlord initially expressed satisfaction with the proposed assignee but later rescinded consent, citing concerns that the assignee might seek to renegotiate rent and that the tenant was in default of lease renewal agreement improvements.

The court found that the landlord's primary stated reason for refusal (assignee seeking rent renegotiation) dissipated after the assignee confirmed its intent to abide by the lease terms.

The court also determined that the landlord's subsequent reliance on the tenant's alleged defaults was an after-the-fact justification and not the genuine reason for refusal at the time.

The application was granted, concluding that the landlord's refusal was unreasonable.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application and the granting of the respondent's counter-application, the court determined costs.

The applicant argued that proposed Minutes of Settlement sent to the respondent constituted a Rule 49 offer.

The court found that the email attaching the Minutes explicitly stated counsel did not have instructions, and therefore it was not a valid Rule 49 offer.

The successful respondent was awarded costs of $10,509.75 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent held her 50% interest in a condominium in trust for him, based on resulting and/or constructive trust principles, and an order vesting 100% beneficial ownership in him.

The respondent filed a counter-application seeking an order for the listing and sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The court found no resulting trust, as the respondent contributed significantly to the property's acquisition cost, negating a gratuitous transfer.

No constructive trust was established, as the applicant's payment of carrying costs was offset by his family's occupation of the property, providing a juristic reason for any enrichment.

The applicant's claims were denied, and the respondent's counter-application for the sale of the property was granted, with net proceeds to be divided equally.

The respondent father sought to set aside a final child support order made in 2013 on the grounds of lack of service and failure to appear, or alternatively, to vary the order retroactively based on a change in circumstances.

The applicant mother opposed both requests.

The court found that the father had adequate notice of the proceedings through service of an amended application and related documents, and that he failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his non-appearance.

The court dismissed the request to set aside the order.

However, the court found that the father's actual income was substantially less than the $150,000 imputed by the original judge, and that there had been a material change in circumstances.

The court varied the order retroactively from January 1, 2014, determining the father's income based on a lifestyle analysis that revealed significant unreported cash income.

The court also accounted for the birth of a second child in 2015 as a change in circumstances.