Peter-Paul Du Vernet

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs endorsement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

This application concerns a dispute between two groups of condominium unit owners regarding the election of a new board of directors following a previous court order for a turnover meeting.

Both groups held their own elections, each claiming the other's was invalid due to procedural irregularities or lack of proper notice/attendance records.

The court found both elections invalid due to substantive issues within their procedural flaws and ordered a new, properly convened turnover meeting within 30 days, with specific requirements for notice, candidate identification, and voting records.

No costs were awarded.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an order dismissing its cross-motion for production of financial documents.

The court first determined that the underlying order was interlocutory, not final, as it arose from a discovery motion and did not finally determine substantive rights.

Consequently, the appeal lay to a single judge of the Superior Court rather than the Divisional Court.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that the justice of the case warranted granting the extension, noting the moving party's bona fide intention to appeal and the lack of significant prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out of its banquet hall business by the respondent landlord due to rent arrears accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the landlord had lulled the tenant into believing rent was reduced or in abeyance, and that the landlord's re-entry on October 19, 2020, violated the Protecting Small Businesses Act, 2020.

The court granted the application, ordering the landlord to restore possession and granting the tenant relief from forfeiture.

In an application seeking a declaration that certain promissory notes were forged, the respondents brought a motion under Rule 30.04(2) to compel the applicants to produce the original promissory notes for inspection.

The applicants argued they did not possess the originals and that the motion was an abuse of process.

The Master granted the motion, ordering both parties to produce any original promissory notes in their possession or provide sworn evidence explaining their whereabouts, emphasizing the importance of verifying pivotal documents.

The applicants sought to remove land and PPSA registrations placed by the respondents on the basis of two promissory notes.

The court determined a preliminary issue of whether the promissory notes were enforceable on their face against the applicant corporations.

The court found that because the notes did not name the corporations, despite the individual signatory indicating he had authority to bind a corporation, the notes were only enforceable against the individual personally.

Consequently, the registrations against the corporate applicants were ordered removed.

The appellants moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of their Divisional Court appeal and to extend the time for appeal.

The appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar based on a misapprehension that no transcript was required.

The court found that the dismissal was an administrative error, as transcripts had been ordered and the trial judge had not yet issued a final judgment on the construction lien issues.

The court set aside the dismissal and granted the extension of time, finding the four-part test for an extension was met.