Raghav Vig

The plaintiff landlord corporation brought an application under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 for a writ of possession and an order for payment of rent arrears and utilities, the monetary amounts exceeding the jurisdiction of the Landlord Tenant Board.

The respondent tenant admitted non-payment of rent but claimed he had been negotiating a business arrangement with the landlord's representative excusing him from payment.

The court found the respondent filed no sworn evidence supporting any such agreement and granted the relief sought, including a writ of possession, arrears, and partial indemnity costs of $4,250.00.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's grant of an interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $44,086.96, relying on an Offer to Settle served on August 19, 2025, which proposed settlement on essentially the same basis as the relief granted.

The plaintiff alternatively sought partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $33,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that while the defendants' conduct did not justify costs throughout on a substantial indemnity scale, it was objectionable and they ought to have accepted the offer.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's tenancy at commercial premises.

The plaintiff had entered into a binding lease in 2021 with the former landlord for approximately 54,800 square feet.

Due to a holdover tenant, the plaintiff only occupied approximately 27,000 square feet beginning in April 2024 on a month-to-month basis.

When the defendants purchased the property in April 2025, they initially accepted the arrangement but subsequently demanded full payment under the original lease and issued a notice of termination for alleged rental default.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding that all three prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test were satisfied.

The defendants' zoning by-law concerns were addressed but did not outweigh the balance of inconvenience favoring the plaintiff.