Paul Dollak

The applicant tenant sought an order confirming the renewal of their commercial lease and the appointment of an arbitrator to determine renewal terms.

The respondents landlords brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that the lease was terminated and a writ of possession.

The court found that the tenant had validly exercised their option to renew the lease, having met all conditions, and was not in material default of the lease terms.

The landlords' alleged breaches were not substantiated or were deemed unreasonable.

The court granted the tenant's application for lease renewal and arbitration of terms, and dismissed the landlords' counter-application for termination and possession.

This endorsement addresses the costs for two applications arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Sellers, who were successful in the main applications (dismissing the Buyers' application and granting their own for damages), sought substantial indemnity costs.

The Buyers argued for a lower partial indemnity award.

The court found that the Sellers' offer to settle, though with limited compromise, triggered Rule 49.10, entitling them to substantial indemnity costs from the offer date.

Despite a significant discrepancy in legal fees and hours between the parties, the court applied a reduction for potential "overkill" by the Sellers' counsel, ultimately awarding the Sellers $55,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

This case involved two cross-applications arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The buyers (Adusei and Gruenberg) sought relief from forfeiture of their $90,000 deposit, while the sellers (Ravindra and Manogaran) sought a declaration that the buyers breached the agreement of purchase and sale (APS), release of the deposit, and damages.

The court found that the buyers breached the APS and that the sellers were ready, willing, and able to close.

The buyers' argument that damages should be assessed at an earlier date due to anticipatory repudiation was rejected, as the sellers had affirmed the contract.

The court concluded that the sellers were entitled to the $90,000 deposit and an additional $110,000 in damages, representing the difference between the APS price and the property's market value on the closing date.

The buyers' application for relief from forfeiture was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendants' counterclaim in the underlying action (2022 ONSC 1235).

The court determined the allocation of 'costs thrown away' from a mistrial, finding the plaintiffs responsible due to their counsel's mistake regarding land descriptions, and awarded these costs on a full indemnity basis.

For the costs of the action, the court applied a partial indemnity scale, rejecting the defendants' claim for substantial indemnity due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

The court also considered the reasonableness of counsel's rates and time spent, applying a reduction to the defendants' claimed costs for overall reasonableness, including a deduction for a prior removal motion.

The final award was $462,422.01 in favour of the defendants.

This case involved a dispute between two groups (Strasser and Hung) who were partners in a land development project.

After deciding to end their partnership and divide the lands, an equalization payment was made based on appraisals.

The Plaintiffs (Strasser Group) sought rectification of the agreements and compensation, alleging a common mistake regarding future development charges on the industrial lands they received, which significantly inflated their value.

The court found that while a common mistake existed, the agreements themselves allocated the risk of such mistakes to the party owning the lands.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for rectification, holding that rectification is for correcting errors in recording an agreement, not for changing the agreement itself due to a belatedly recognized error of judgment or unanticipated effects.

The Defendants' counterclaim was also dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a dismissed motion where the Plaintiff sought various interlocutory relief, including restoration of access and possession to leased premises.

The Defendant, who successfully opposed the motion, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity in the alternative.

The Plaintiff argued costs should be deferred or significantly reduced, and that its principal, Floora Davachi, should not be personally liable.

The court awarded the Defendant partial indemnity costs, finding no basis for substantial indemnity, and held the Plaintiff and its principal personally liable for costs based on a prior agreement between counsel.

The plaintiff tenant sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to restore its access to a commercial leased premises after the defendant landlord changed the locks and terminated the lease for rent arrears and an intention to sell the property.

The plaintiff argued the termination was invalid because the 2021 lease was a new lease, not a renewal, and thus the landlord could not exercise a termination right tied to the renewal period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the 2021 lease was a new lease rather than a renewal, and noted the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of approval for COVID-19 rent subsidies to trigger statutory protections.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a libel action commenced by the plaintiffs, a law firm and its senior partner.

The action arose after the individual defendant protested outside the plaintiffs' offices with placards alleging the law firm was withholding funds owed to the corporate defendant for occupational therapy services.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather a private financial dispute between two professional firms.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, finding compelling facts to depart from the statutory presumption of no costs for an unsuccessful moving party.

The applicants brought a motion for directions regarding four potential testamentary documents left by the deceased.

The court found that a 2000 holograph will was valid, but subsequent unsigned alterations increasing specific bequests were invalid.

A 2009 handwritten document was found to be a valid codicil that revoked the bequest of the residue to the deceased's estranged daughter.

This revocation resulted in a partial intestacy regarding the residue.

Despite the deceased's clear intention in the 2009 codicil to disinherit his daughter, the court held that under section 47(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act, the daughter was entitled to the residue as the sole surviving issue on intestacy.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal action, sought to amend his statement of claim to include claims for moral, aggravated, and punitive damages, alleging the defendant employer engaged in a bad faith campaign, including unwarranted disciplinary proceedings.

The defendant opposed certain amendments, arguing they constituted an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the disciplinary process might not address the employer's bad faith motive, nor provide the same relief (employment-related damages), and that the amendments were not a collateral attack on the regulatory process itself but rather on the employer's alleged bad faith use of that process.

The defendants moved to amend their statement of defence and for an order requiring the plaintiff to post further security for costs.

The plaintiff, who claimed to be impecunious, had previously been ordered to post a modest amount of security.

The defendants discovered that the plaintiff had entered into an assignment agreement with a paralegal corporation to fund the litigation in exchange for 15% of any recovery.

The court allowed the amendments to the statement of defence.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to disclose the funding agreement on the initial motion, breaching the duty of candour required when pleading impecuniosity.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the plaintiff to post further security for costs in staged amounts.

Following a motion for an interlocutory injunction relating to access to a disputed property, the court had granted temporary relief preserving the status quo pending a future motion to vacate a certificate of pending litigation.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing it had been successful on the motion.

The responding parties argued that costs should be reserved because the interim order did not finally determine the merits and was granted only pending the return of the injunction motion.

The court agreed that a proper assessment of success required fuller consideration of the merits and therefore reserved the costs of the motion to the judge hearing the motion on its return.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the defendants from entering or conducting demolition activities on a property following a power of sale transaction that the plaintiff alleged was improvident and non-arm’s length.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions and found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the plaintiff retained an interest in the property.

Given existing demolition preparations and the plaintiff’s development plans, the court found a risk of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured temporary restraint.

The court granted a limited interlocutory injunction pending further proceedings relating to a motion to vacate a certificate of pending litigation.

Following an appeal from a master's ruling, the court issued an amended endorsement addressing costs.

The respondent to the appeal sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter, relying on an earlier no-costs settlement offer rejected by the appellants.

The appellants argued they were entitled to costs for a successful motion to stay the master's order pending appeal and that the respondent’s claimed appeal costs were excessive.

The court awarded the respondent most of its requested appeal costs but deducted a portion attributable to the stay motion, while granting the appellants partial costs for that motion.

After set-off, the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent $6,043.57 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following an unsuccessful appeal, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful respondent sought costs calculated on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of a rejected offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The appellants argued they were entitled to costs for a motion to stay the Master’s ruling and that the respondent’s claimed costs were excessive because the appeal issues mirrored those before the Master.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the stay motion unnecessary and the requested amount reasonable when compared to the appellants’ own costs outline.

Costs were fixed in favour of the successful respondent.

The defendants appealed a master's order refusing to strike portions of a statement of claim referring to alleged unethical business practices.

The plaintiff alleged workplace injuries caused by repetitive strain from extensive keyboarding while creating false online dating profiles as part of the defendants’ business operations, and advanced a claim including waiver of tort.

The appellants argued that references to ethics were not legally provable and would improperly shift the litigation toward debates about business ethics rather than legal liability.

The court held that the master's decision appropriately balanced the removal of inflammatory language with preserving factual context relevant to the pleaded causes of action.

At the pleadings stage, the references were permissible as part of the factual narrative supporting the waiver of tort theory and should not be struck.

On a procedural motion in a simplified rules action, the moving parties sought to rely on transcripts and undertakings generated from cross-examinations conducted on affidavits in relation to a certificate of pending litigation motion.

The court reviewed Rules 1, 2, 42, and 76, prior authorities on irregularities and fresh steps, and the statutory framework governing certificates of pending litigation.

The court held that, given the nature of the interim land-related relief and the parties' conduct, use of the existing transcripts should be permitted on the main motion.

The withdrawn refusals motion and the subsidiary motion costs were reserved to the judicial officer hearing the certificate motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add two proposed corporate defendants more than two years after the alleged fraud.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no genuine issue of discoverability and holding that the doctrine of misnomer does not apply when a plaintiff seeks to add new parties as co-defendants alongside the originally named defendant, rather than correcting a mistakenly named party.