Reshma Prem Kishnani

The applicants, estate trustees of the late Ellen Kates, sought to propound codicils executed in August 2011.

The objectors challenged the codicils on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, citing the testator's diagnosis of moderate Alzheimer's disease.

The court found that despite the cognitive impairment, the testator understood the nature and effect of the codicils, the extent of her property, and the claims of those excluded.

The court also found no evidence of coercion or fraud amounting to undue influence.

The codicils were admitted to probate.

The applicant, Eva Oppong, sought substantial indemnity costs following a successful application where her lease was declared valid and continuing.

The respondent, Desaro Holdings Inc., opposed substantial indemnity, arguing for partial indemnity or no costs.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs in the full amount claimed, totaling $21,784.82, finding that while the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity, the applicant should be indemnified for enforcing her legal rights.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought the return of possession and quiet enjoyment of leased premises after being wrongfully locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord claimed the lease terminated based on a purported amending agreement, which the court found invalid due to lack of authenticity and consideration.

The court granted the applicant equitable relief from forfeiture, declared the original lease valid until February 28, 2022, and ordered the landlord to take all lawful steps to deliver vacant possession, despite a new tenant being in possession.

A trial was ordered to determine damages for the wrongful termination and dispossession.

The self-represented appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board but failed to perfect the appeal within the required time.

The Registrar dismissed the appeal for delay.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal and extend the time to perfect.

The Divisional Court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal and found that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for the delay, the landlord would suffer prejudice, and the appeal lacked merit as it raised no questions of law.

The motion was dismissed and the eviction order remained in force, subject to the provincial COVID-19 moratorium on evictions.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture and return of leased premises.

The respondent landlord requested an adjournment, which was granted by the court.

The adjournment was primarily due to the lack of notice to a third-party tenant in possession and the need for potential further evidence regarding a contentious lease amending agreement.

The court set specific terms for the adjournment, including notification of the third party and a timetable for outstanding materials.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought urgent relief from lease forfeiture by the respondent landlord.

This endorsement scheduled an urgent application hearing and provided comprehensive procedural directions for electronic filing, email service, and remote hearing arrangements, designating a specific justice to preside over the matter.

On a summary judgment record, the court decided a federal employment dispute concerning entitlement to vacation pay for a commission-only employee under the Canada Labour Code.

The plaintiff argued for vacation pay in addition to commissions, while the defendant maintained that the parties had an enforceable agreement permitting vacation pay to be drawn from commission earnings.

The court held that nothing in the Code prohibited such an arrangement, provided the statutory formula of 4% or 6% of yearly compensation was met.

Finding the agreement enforceable, the court dismissed the action and awarded the defendant $20,000 in costs.

The moving party sought to combine two related actions arising from an insurance claim following a residential fire and to strike the other claimant’s statement of claim.

The actions were brought separately by former spouses asserting competing interests in insurance proceeds.

The court considered Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing consolidation or joint hearings where proceedings share common questions of law or fact or arise from the same transaction.

Finding that the claims involved overlapping factual issues and competing interests in the same insurance proceeds, the court held that the most expeditious and fair procedure was to have the actions tried together.

The request to strike the other action was not granted, and directions were provided for joint discovery, production, mediation, and potential cross-claims.