44 total
Commercial lease termination upheld; notice of default sufficient and post-termination agreement not unconscionable.
The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its action on a motion for summary judgment regarding a commercial lease termination.
The tenant argued the landlord was not entitled to terminate the lease, failed to provide proper notice of default, and that a post-termination agreement was unconscionable.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the security deposit was deficient, the notice of default was sufficient under the Commercial Tenancies Act, and the post-termination agreement was not unconscionable as there was no inequality of bargaining power or unfairness.
Leave to appeal OMB decision denying removal of solicitor for conflict of interest dismissed.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed their motion to remove the responding parties' solicitor of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.
The Divisional Court found that the Board correctly applied the test for removal of a solicitor and made factual findings that no retainer existed and no confidential information was imparted.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed as the moving parties failed to show an error of law or good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.
Appeal dismissed; owners of parking and storage units are not entitled to vote under section 49(3).
The appellants appealed a decision regarding the voting rights of owners of parking and storage units.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court that under section 49(3), owners of such units are not entitled to vote, subject to the statutory exception.
No palpable and overriding error justified appellate intervention.
The appellants sought a new trial, alleging errors in the trial judge's reasons in a fraudulent misrepresentation action arising from a land purchase.
The court held there was ample evidence supporting each alternative basis on which the trial judge relied and that it was open to the trial judge to conclude the appellants failed to prove fraudulent representations.
The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error in the treatment of the evidence, including evidence concerning land value and the alleged representation.
The appeal was dismissed with costs on a solicitor and client basis.