Roger Alton Gosbee

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that a requirement to maintain eight doctors as tenants and a corresponding rent abatement provision in a 1990 commercial lease were not eliminated by a subsequent renewal agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the commercial context and language of the agreements.

Applying Sattva, the Court held that deference was owed to the application judge's interpretation.

Following a family law trial addressing financial issues, the successful party sought costs after the court invited written submissions concerning the effect of settlement offers.

The court considered the impact of an informal offer to settle that did not strictly comply with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules but remained open and was significantly exceeded by the judgment obtained at trial.

In determining costs under Rule 24, the court emphasized the complexity and importance of the issues, the reasonableness of the successful party’s conduct, and the opposing party’s failure to provide proper financial disclosure and inappropriate behaviour at trial.

The court held that the unsuccessful party’s conduct prolonged the proceedings and justified an enhanced level of costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis pre‑trial and enhanced costs for the trial itself.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its operation of a go-kart business pending trial.

The parties had entered into a Management Agreement, which the defendants purported to terminate by changing the locks, alleging breaches by the plaintiff.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the termination, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if put out of business, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted subject to several conditions, including the timely payment of amounts due under the agreement.

The appellant appealed an order striking her Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Crown.

The appellant argued the claim could be read as pleading negligent investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the words 'negligent investigation' did not appear and no supporting facts were pleaded.

In a supplementary endorsement, the Court of Appeal clarified its previous order regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The Court confirmed that the trial of the issue was ordered only on Part 4 of section 444.1(1) of the Municipal Act, as the offer to lease entered into before June 11, 1998, satisfied Part 1 of the section.