Raymond H. Raphael

The appellants appealed an application judge's interpretation of a profit-sharing clause in agreements concerning commercial real estate properties.

The application judge had held that 'net profit' included revenue earned and that mortgage and loan interest were 'non-recovered costs'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the application judge erred by imposing an interpretation of 'net sale proceeds' that was not argued and was inconsistent with the unambiguous language of the clause.

The Court also held that mortgage and loan interest were not 'non-recovered costs' within the meaning of the agreements.

The parties reached a settlement on the appeal from the judgments of Justice Susan E. Greer.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the $1.5 million held in trust pursuant to a prior order be transferred forthwith to Goldman Sloan in trust pending further order, and that necessary consents be filed to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a rent abatement for the discontinuance of storage lockers.

On appeal, the landlord introduced fresh evidence showing the lockers had been replaced, making the discontinuance temporary.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, terminating the ongoing rent abatement effective May 1, 2003, pursuant to s. 30(5) of Ontario Regulation 194/98, but awarded costs to the tenants because the appeal arose from the landlord's failure to adduce evidence initially and its subsequent change of position.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action on summary judgment.

The motions judge found the action was statute-barred because the cause of action accrued more than six years before the Statement of Claim was issued.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, applying the principle that a cause of action accrues once the plaintiff knows some damage has occurred and has identified the tortfeasor.

The court found the appellant's letter sent prior to the limitation period demonstrated his awareness of the respondents' conduct and the resulting damages.

The landlord sued the tenant and guarantor for damages.

The residential lease was for a one-year fixed term, which expired and automatically became a month-to-month tenancy under s. 104(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The Divisional Court found the guarantor liable for damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory deemed renewal does not apply to guarantors.

Because the guarantee contained no language regarding renewals, it expired at the end of the first year.

The trial judge's decision was restored.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding its business tax assessment.

The issue was whether leasing photocopiers constituted the sale of a 'service' under s. 7(1)(e) of the Ontario Assessment Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting reasons in the Court of Appeal, holding that 'services' must bear its ordinary meaning as the product of the work of the person supplying it.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found assessable under the catch-all provision in s. 7(1)(j) rather than s. 7(1)(e).