Serdal Mikael Citak

This is a costs decision following an interim parenting order motion.

The court previously granted an interim parenting arrangement providing the applicant father with weekend and mid-week parenting time.

The respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought no costs or alternatively costs in his favour.

The court found that neither party was successful on the motion, as neither proposed parenting schedule was adopted.

The court determined that success was divided due to the respondent's unreasonable and vacillating positions throughout the motion and the applicant's unsuccessful position stemming from family violence concerns involving his parents.

Accordingly, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

A motion for summary judgment brought by a home developer to recover damages arising from an abandoned agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant admitted non-completion but argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court found the plaintiff did not reasonably mitigate because it failed to disclose or identify specific marketing steps taken to resell the property, chose not to list on MLS, and delayed resale efforts.

The court assessed damages as of the breach date rather than the resale date, resulting in no damages owed after crediting the defendant's deposits.

The Body Shop Canada Limited (TBS Canada) sought various orders under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) following its UK parent's unexpected insolvency and cessation of financial support, which left TBS Canada with significant debts and operational challenges.

The requested relief included expanding the stay of proceedings, granting an administration charge, approving an indemnity and priority charge for directors and officers, directing the production of company records, and extending the time to file a proposal.

The court granted all requested orders, emphasizing the unusual and urgent circumstances, the necessity of the relief for TBS Canada's continued operations and restructuring efforts, and the consent of key stakeholders.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondents damages for illegal distress, conversion, and defamation.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to appear at the hearing and had previously shown no interest in proceeding, including not responding to motions to remove their counsel.

The court found that the appellants had not demonstrated any interest in prosecuting their appeal.

The plaintiffs, owners of a laundromat business, brought an action against their landlords for wrongful distraint, unlawful termination of their commercial lease, conversion, and defamation.

The landlords had seized the premises without notice, changed the locks, and posted notices accusing the plaintiff of fraud and embezzlement.

The court found the distraint and lease termination were unlawful, as a landlord cannot simultaneously terminate a lease and distrain property.

The court also found the landlords liable for conversion of the business and for defamation due to the false and malicious notices.

The plaintiffs were awarded $362,675 in total damages, including $50,000 for defamation and $50,000 in aggravated and punitive damages.

The defendants' counterclaim for alleged rental arrears was dismissed.

The trustee in bankruptcy disclaimed the bankrupt tenant's commercial lease.

The landlord subsequently drew down the full $2.5 million of a letter of credit provided as security under the lease.

The trustee brought a motion to determine the amount the landlord was entitled to draw.

The court held that upon disclaimer of the lease, the bankrupt's obligations to the landlord ceased, and the landlord was only entitled to draw $623,196.84 for its preferred claim of three months' accelerated rent under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The landlord was ordered to pay the balance to the trustee.