Rohit R. Kumar

In an ongoing family law dispute, the court addressed several issues regarding the court-ordered sale of eight properties.

The respondent brought a motion to vary the order to sell the properties, arguing they were no longer required to pay the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's continued obstructive conduct and the uncertainty of receivership costs and tax liabilities.

The court also established a mechanism for the applicant to obtain vesting orders if the respondent obstructed the sales, directed a trial of an issue regarding the validity of third-party mortgages, and refused to release sale proceeds to the respondent's company until the applicant was fully paid.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after the respondent landlord issued a notice of default for unpaid additional rent and utility arrears.

The tenant had withheld payment of the disputed amounts pending arbitration, arguing the landlord failed to properly substantiate the charges.

The court held that the tenant was in breach of the lease, as the lease contained a 'no deduction' clause requiring payment of rent without set-off pending arbitration.

The court declined to grant relief from forfeiture pending arbitration, finding the tenant's conduct wilful, but granted a temporary 20-day relief period for the tenant to cure the default by paying all arrears.

Following the dismissal of Bell Canada's application, Cloudwifi's motion to dismiss/stay, and Cloudwifi's cross-application, both parties sought costs.

Bell sought partial indemnity costs of $122,572.78, and Cloudwifi sought $116,145.76.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

Bell was not entitled to costs as its application was dismissed.

Cloudwifi was denied costs despite its success on the jurisdictional issue because its actions in unlawfully utilizing Bell's equipment amounted to significant misconduct.

The parties made written submissions on costs following a motion where the plaintiff sought leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

Success on the motion was divided; the plaintiff was unsuccessful on the primary issue but successful on two subsidiary issues.

The court found the defendants were the more successful parties but reduced their costs award by 50% to reflect their failure to consent to the amendments on which the plaintiff succeeded.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants $6,000 in costs.

Following a summary judgment motion where success was divided, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The parties had previously agreed to cap costs at $20,000 for the successful party.

Finding that the responding party was more successful based on the issues proceeding to trial, the court ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $10,000.