Sarah Wouters

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding her reasons careful and complete, and her articulation of legal principles clear and correct.

The court noted the appellant's self-drafted pleadings were unacceptable and that his later apology and amended drafts were strategic, not genuine.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses the issues of rent differential damages and trial costs following a partial allowance of an appeal.

The appellant argued that the respondent had not suffered damages due to a forfeited $200,000 deposit.

The court agreed, ordering no rent differential damages payable.

The parties also resolved the trial costs issue by agreeing to set aside the original $300,000 costs award and for each party to bear its own trial costs.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease for refrigerated premises and the calculation of damages for breach of contract.

The appellant tenant challenged the trial judge's findings on lease certainty, the ascertainability of the commencement date based on "substantial completion," and the quantum of damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the lease was valid and that the tenant was in breach for failing to take possession.

However, the Court found a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination of the lease commencement date, ruling that "substantial completion" occurred later, on the date of CFIA registration, not an earlier date based on general occupancy readiness.

This error led to a recalculation of damages, with several categories of damages (lost rent, taxes, utilities, maintenance, administrative fees) being set aside.

The Court also set aside a commission settlement award, finding the landlord failed to prove it incurred the loss.

The appeal was allowed on the issue of damages, but otherwise dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The defendant, Sandeep Prabakhar, brought a motion to set aside default judgment, the noting in default, and a writ of seizure and sale obtained by the plaintiff, Merchant Advance Capital Ltd. Prabakhar claimed he was a victim of fraud, denying he signed the underlying agreement or personal guarantee, and that his previous counsel failed to act promptly.

The court applied the test from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, finding a plausible explanation for the default and an arguable defence with an "air of reality." The court also determined that the overall justice of the case favoured setting aside the default and removing the writ, as the plaintiff had rushed to judgment without warning.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent $247,247.93 plus interest and costs under a mortgage, and requiring delivery of possession of the mortgaged property.

The respondent had advanced monies to the appellants to assist in running a charitable organization.

After the first two advances were repaid, the latter two were not, and the appellants subsequently executed a mortgage and promissory note to secure the outstanding amount.

The motion judge rejected the appellants' defences that the monies were a gift, that they did not understand the mortgage despite receiving independent legal advice, that they signed under duress, and that the transaction was unconscionable.

On appeal, the appellants limited their argument to the quantum of the judgment, challenging the motion judge's reliance on Schedule A for determining the amount due.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal.