Randell K. Thomson

A commercial tenant vacated leased premises and removed most furnishings and assets.

The landlord sought partial summary judgment under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act for twice the value of goods removed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding the tenant and its principals liable.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge failed to properly apply the two-step analytical framework established in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge addressed the first step of the Hryniak analysis, he failed to address the second step regarding how factual disputes should be determined.

The court found genuine factual issues existed between the parties regarding whether the landlord had consented to the removal of assets, and the motion judge improperly resolved these conflicts based on credibility findings without proper consideration of the appropriate mechanism for resolving disputed facts.

Following a 23-day trial that originated as a contested passing of accounts, the unsuccessful plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.

The defendants sought substantial or full indemnity costs based on unproven allegations of breach of trust and unaccepted offers to settle.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding the allegations did not amount to fraud and the plaintiff was entitled to a trial.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs, significantly reducing claims for travel expenses, expert fees, and excessive trial preparation time, ultimately ordering the plaintiff to pay a total of $721,450 in costs to the various defendants.

The plaintiff, a residual beneficiary of her father's estate, brought an action against the estate trustee, the estate's lawyers and accountants, and the purchasers of the deceased's shares in a family business.

The plaintiff alleged that the estate trustee breached her fiduciary duty by selling the shares without authorization and at an undervalue, and raised numerous objections on the passing of accounts.

The court found that the will authorized the sale of the shares, the estate trustee acted reasonably, and the shares were sold for fair market value.

The claims against all defendants were dismissed.

On the passing of accounts, the court fixed the estate trustee's compensation but reduced it to account for legal and accounting fees that were properly characterized as executor's work.

Following the respondent's complete success on the application, the court determined the quantum of costs payable by the applicant.

The respondent sought costs but failed to deliver a Bill of Costs, and the applicant argued the respondent's Costs Outline showed exorbitant and duplicated time logged by multiple professionals.

Applying the principle that costs must be within the reasonable expectation of the losing party, the court agreed with the applicant's complaints regarding excessive time charges and fixed the respondent's partial indemnity costs at $15,000 all inclusive.

A corporate defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order granting an injunction freezing proceeds from the sale of certain properties.

The moving party argued the motion judge erred regarding res judicata and the existence of a serious issue to be tried, and that the order improperly restrained funds without determining a proprietary interest.

The court applied Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that the moving party failed to establish either a conflicting decision or a good reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with a matter of sufficient public importance.

The dispute was fact-driven and concerned only the interests of the litigants.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The plaintiff moved for orders requiring a corporate defendant to disclose its intended use of proceeds from the sale of certain properties and for an interlocutory injunction preventing the dissipation of those proceeds pending trial.

The motion arose in the context of allegations that substantial funds from a promissory note owed to the corporation had disappeared from its accounts, raising concerns about potential asset dissipation and the plaintiff’s ability to enforce any future judgment.

Applying the principles governing Mareva-type injunctions and the interlocutory injunction framework from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried and that irreparable harm could result if assets were dissipated.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the funds.

The request for disclosure of intended use of the proceeds was denied, but an injunction restricting distribution of the sale proceeds was granted subject to limited permitted expenditures.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the corporate defendant from dissipating the proceeds of the sale of three properties, fearing an inability to enforce a future judgment.

The plaintiff alleged that $400,000 from a promissory note was missing from the corporate defendant's accounts.

Applying the tests for interlocutory and Mareva injunctions, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the assets were dissipated, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court granted the injunction, subject to conditions allowing the corporate defendant to pay reasonable expenses related to the property sales.