1660841 Ontario Ltd. v. 2259778 Ontario Inc., 2025 ONSC 3937
Court File No.: CV-24-00719230-0000
Date: 2025-07-02
Court: Superior Court of Justice
Between:
1660841 Ontario Ltd., Moving Party/Plaintiff
and
2259778 Ontario Inc. o/a Canasia Custom Granite & Marble, Responding Party/Defendant
Before: S. Nakatsuru
Counsel:
Sam A. Presvelos, for the Moving Party/Plaintiff
No one appearing for the Responding Party/Defendant
Heard: July 2, 2025, in writing
Endorsement
[1] The Moving Party/Plaintiff moves for summary judgment. The Responding Party/Defendant filed no evidence, made no submissions, and did not indicate it would attend at the hearing of the motion when it was originally scheduled for an oral hearing. Thus, pursuant to endorsement made previously, this motion was heard in writing.
[2] Essentially, the Moving Party/Plaintiff, 1660841 Ontario Ltd. (the “Landlord”), is a commercial landlord who rented a premise to the Responding Party/Defendant, 2259778 Ontario Inc. (the “Tenant”). The latter operated a granite and marble fabrication business from one of the commercial units within the Landlord’s property pursuant to a commercial lease dated November 23, 2010.
Test for Summary Judgment
[3] In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 45, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that summary judgment is a significant alternative model of adjudication. Rule 20 provides judges with fact-finding powers (i.e., the power to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw inferences) if required, in order to eliminate unmeritorious claims that have no chance of success at trial.
[4] Determination of a motion for summary judgment involves a two-step approach. A judge must:
- Determine whether there is a genuine issue requiring trial based only on the evidence before him or her, without using the fact-finding powers. If there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, summary judgment "must be granted".
- If there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, the judge should then determine whether "the need for a trial can be avoided" by using the fact-finding powers to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw inferences.
Analysis
[5] I find there is no genuine issue for trial. Not on liability. Not on damages.
[6] Nothing has been put forth by the Tenant. A responding party may not rest solely on the allegations or denials in the party’s pleadings. Under rule 20.0(2), they “must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial”. Each side must “put its best foot forward” with respect to the existence or non-existence of material issues to be tried. A court is entitled to assume that the record contains all the evidence that the parties would present if the matter proceeded to trial.
[7] First, I am satisfied that the Landlord has proven a breach of contract. The Lease contained clear obligations regarding property maintenance and repair, the notification of any damage, and prohibited making openings in the floor, injuring the building or leaving waste.
[8] The Tenant breached these Lease provisions by: (i) cutting a hole along the concrete floor of the premise; (ii) clogging the floor drain; (iii) permitting the accumulation of debris inside and outside of the premise and failing to rectify same before leaving the premise and relocating to a new place.
[9] Second, the damages to repair the floor and remove the waste flow directly from the breach of contract and are not remote. The costs to repair and remove are reasonably foreseeable. The loss because of the breach is readily quantifiable and should be expected. To restore the Landlord to the position it would have been in had the contract been performed is the amount of $68,043.52. This is what it cost the Landlord to restore the premise to a good, workable condition. That amount is fair and reasonable. I note that the Landlord did not accept the first quote it received which was higher.
[10] I make the following Order: (1) Order awarding damages to the Moving Party/Plaintiff in the amount of $68,043.52 and (2) an Order for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.
[11] The Moving Party/Plaintiff seeks costs of this motion fixed at $5,000. I find it is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay this amount in the particular circumstances. Costs to be awarded to the Moving Party/Plaintiff in the amount at $5,000 all inclusive.
Justice S. Nakatsuru
Released: July 2, 2025.