Rene Liebs-Benke

The applicant property owners sought a writ of possession and the removal of a caution to complete the sale of a commercial unit to a third-party purchaser.

The respondent tenant, who had been overholding since the expiration of the original lease, claimed a First Right of Refusal (FRR) to match the purchase offer.

The court found that the FRR expired with the original lease and did not carry over into the overholding period.

The application was granted, the caution was ordered removed, and a writ of possession was issued.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the corporate respondent, an international moving services company.

The corporate respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company engaged in interprovincial and international transportation.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the corporate respondent's labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This was a costs ruling following a contested passing of accounts in estate litigation involving a former estate trustee who sought compensation and discharge after an alleged gift claim created a conflict of interest.

The court held that costs in contested passing of accounts proceedings are governed by s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 74.18, and the Rule 57 factors, and that the modern approach in estate litigation is not to routinely indemnify all parties from the estate.

The court found mixed success, accepted that the former trustee was entitled to reasonable indemnification, but also found delay, inadequate disclosure, improperly formatted accounts, and conflict-related delay attributable to the applicant side.

Costs were apportioned between the estate and the applicant side, with the respondent receiving the larger net award.

Estate trustees sought approval of estate accounts and determination of trustee compensation following the death of an intestate estate trustee before accounts were passed.

The respondent beneficiary objected to several aspects of the compensation calculation, including investment losses, treatment of real estate sale proceeds, payments made to the trustee, accounting fees, and the application of standard percentage-based compensation.

The court held that compensation should not be awarded on losses, that certain disbursements and professional fees should be excluded from compensation calculations, and that reduced percentages were appropriate for some transactions.

Applying the conventional percentage approach cross‑checked against the five-factor analysis for trustee compensation, the court fixed compensation at a reduced amount.

The estate trustee’s compensation was set at $21,761.41 CAD plus $445.81 USD, subject to further submissions on costs and distribution of the remaining estate funds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin against multiple former employers.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations of discrimination based on unsupported suspicion and speculation, with no direct or circumstantial evidence linking her terminations or lack of promotion to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Licensee appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario for permitting more persons in the licensed premises than the maximum capacity allowed.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that there were up to 275 persons in an area licensed for 196 persons, in violation of section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The Board upheld the violation and confirmed the agreed monetary penalty of $2,000.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer terminated weekly income benefits, and the parties proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's physical injuries had largely resolved, but she continued to suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her occupation due to psychological injuries until March 24, 1993.

The Applicant was awarded weekly income benefits up to that date, as well as supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits for her residual psychological injuries.

The Insurer was entitled to repayment of weekly income benefits paid after March 24, 1993.