R. Choi

The respondents brought a motion to set aside an order granted to the applicant during a telephone case conference that the respondents failed to attend.

The underlying dispute involved a commercial sublease and a $350,000 payment.

The court applied the factors under Rule 38.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the respondents failed to attend due to insufficient notice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that the respondents moved forthwith to set aside the order and had an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the order was set aside.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically seeking unredacted copies of the corporate defendant's 2015 and 2016 financial statements.

The defendants claimed the redacted portions were protected by litigation privilege and common interest privilege, arguing they were notes to shareholders describing the ongoing litigation.

The Master reviewed the documents under Rule 30.06(d) and found the defendants failed to establish the evidentiary foundation that the redacted portions were created for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The defendants were ordered to produce the unredacted financial statements and pay costs of $3,000.

The applicants purchased a campsite property and subsequently sought to significantly increase the rent for several cabin owners who leased land on the site.

When the cabin owners challenged the increase at the Landlord and Tenant Board, the applicants brought an application to the Superior Court seeking to declare the leases null and void and to evict the respondents, arguing the leases violated the Planning Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cabins were residential units within a land lease community under the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters regarding the termination of the tenancies.