3 total
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for an interlocutory injunction to access a laneway and awarded substantial indemnity costs due to misleading conduct.
The plaintiffs, property and business owners in Kensington Market, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from blocking access to a laneway that they claimed provided a right of way to their parking areas.
The defendant had temporarily blocked the laneway as part of a permitted five-storey residential development project.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case for any of the three bases of easement claimed (by deed, by prescription, or by necessity).
The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.
Additionally, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs due to their conduct in blocking an alternative access route and their solicitor's misleading affidavit.
The court terminated a commercial lease and ordered possession to the landlord after the tenant made unauthorized alterations and caused a nuisance.
This decision resolves competing applications between a commercial landlord and tenant regarding the use of a basement in a leased property.
The landlord, Danica Schindler, sought to terminate the lease with DFIV Corp. for alleged breaches, including unauthorized use of the basement and installation of equipment.
The tenant countered that use of the basement was an implied term and that the landlord breached the lease by restricting access and failing to provide adequate HVAC.
The court found the lease did not include the basement, the tenant breached the lease by using the basement and installing equipment without consent, and the landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession.
The court granted an injunction and awarded compensatory and punitive damages for repeated trespasses and nuisance during a neighbour's construction project.
The Applicant sought an injunction and damages against the Respondents for nuisance, trespass, and interference with a mutual right-of-way easement during a construction project on the Respondents' adjacent property.
The court found that the Respondents committed nuisance and repeated trespasses, which were not trivial, and awarded damages and punitive damages.
However, the court did not find actionable encroachment on the easement, concluding that temporary impediments did not constitute substantial interference.
An injunction was granted to prevent future trespass during the remaining construction.
