R. Nobleman

The respondent was successful on an application involving complex commercial tenancy issues and sought partial indemnity costs of $48,846.92.

The applicants argued for a reduced amount of $27,000, relying on the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay.

The court reduced the respondent's hourly rates by approximately 15 percent but found the time expended to be reasonable.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondent at $42,047.70, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants, who operated a wellness centre as subtenants, sought a declaration that an assignment of the head lease from the tenant to them was valid and binding on the landlord.

Alternatively, they sought relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the assignment was invalid because the contractual precondition of obtaining the landlord's consent was never met.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicants were not entitled to relief from forfeiture because the tenant had voluntarily abandoned the head lease, meaning the landlord was not proceeding to enforce a right of re-entry or forfeiture.