Rebecca V. Moore

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a 16-page Notice of Application.

The City of Toronto, as the first named respondent, sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.03.

The court found that the applicant failed to follow the required procedure for vexatious litigants to seek leave to proceed, as established by a prior order.

Citing previous decisions involving the same applicant, the court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis to each respondent.

The court issued an endorsement on costs and the deductibility of a prior settlement following a jury trial.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages and punitive damages against the defendants.

The court ruled that a settlement received by one plaintiff from the City of Brampton, explicitly labeled as general damages, was not deductible from the jury's award for loss of income, rejecting the defendants' claim of double recovery.

Regarding costs, the court found the defendants' Rule 49 offer to be improper due to its non-severable nature for multiple plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs' net award exceeded the offer.

Considering the complexity, importance of issues, and the defendants' aggressive litigation tactics, the court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs, fixing the total at $445,000, which included fees, disbursements, and costs thrown away due to an adjournment.

A tenant obtained summary judgment against a landlord for recovery of losses arising from a fire at leased premises under a commercial lease.

The landlord appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in interpreting the lease by failing to apply binding appellate authority regarding contractual allocation of risk, failing to assign meaning to all contested lease terms, and ruling that the tenant's breach of its insurance covenant did not bar its subrogated claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Ledcor Construction.

On remand, the Court of Appeal affirmed its original decision, holding that the correctness standard of review applied to extricable questions of law within the motion judge's interpretation of the negotiated lease.