3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that an amended commercial lease included the basement unit.
The appellant appealed an application judge's order declaring a basement unit part of the premises leased by the respondent.
The original lease defined the premises as "the whole" and while an amended lease changed the rent calculation method, the definition of the premises did not change.
The appellant argued the new rent calculation implied the basement was excluded.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation that the rent calculation merely changed the method for the entire building, especially given the original landlord's knowledge of basement subletting and the illogical outcome of decreased space with increased rent.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the contractor's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error regarding the contractual breach.
Vertical Horizons Contracting Inc. appealed a trial judgment that ordered it to pay the City of Markham $22,291.25 after a set-off, stemming from a breached contract for sanitary sewer system replacement.
The appellant argued that issues with water and soil caused additional expenses and challenged the trial judge's finding of contractual breach.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or interpretation of the contract, which held the appellant responsible for the work methodology and the impacts of site conditions beyond the initial 30 metres of pipe installation.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that a corporation's limitation period for fraud does not begin until its new principal formally acquires control of its shares under the PPSA.
The respondent corporation, 1819472 Ontario Corp. ("9472"), alleged fraud by its former principal and others, leading to an action to recover funds.
The appellants sought summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred due to the limitation period.
The motion judge dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the action was not statute-barred.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the limitation period began when the respondent gained control and knowledge of the claim, which was after the PPSA foreclosure process was completed, not when initial suspicions arose.
The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal as a final order.
