Patrick Duffy

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant for damages after the tenant repudiated a commercial lease with eight years remaining.

The repudiation forced the plaintiff to sell the property, as it could not afford the carrying costs without the rental income and re-letting was unfeasible.

The defendants admitted liability but argued the plaintiff suffered no damages because the property was sold at fair market value.

The court rejected this argument, finding the forced sale was not at fair market value and did not compensate the plaintiff for the lost income stream and capital appreciation.

The court accepted the plaintiff's discounted cash flow analysis to quantify damages, using the 2015 appraised fair market value to account for foreseeable lost capital appreciation, and assuming reasonable mitigation through a hypothetical investment in a REIT basket.

The Regional Municipality of Halton sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that overturned two provisions of its Development Charges By-law.

The Board had excluded capital costs incurred by Conservation Halton and reinstated six categories of residential development instead of the four adopted by the Region.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal regarding the Conservation Halton costs, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 5(3) of the Development Charges Act was not open to serious debate.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the development categories, finding serious debate over whether the Board had the authority to impose its view of fairness and reasonableness without finding non-compliance with the Act.