Sonja Williams

The plaintiffs, commercial landlords, brought a summary trial action against the defendant tenant claiming damages for breach of a five-year lease agreement.

The defendant argued the tenancy was month-to-month and proper notice was given before vacating.

The court found that the essential terms of the alleged long-term lease lacked certainty and the parties had not finalized an agreement.

Furthermore, any oral agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, and the doctrine of part performance did not apply as the acts were not unequivocally referable to a five-year lease.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its action for delay at a status hearing.

The action had not progressed beyond the pleadings stage five years after it was commenced.

The plaintiff failed to comply with a timetable agreed upon at a previous status hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the status hearing judge did not err in considering the entire history of the delay, inferring the defendants' belief that the action was abandoned, and dismissing the action without evidence of actual prejudice to the defendants.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $24,000 for damages resulting from the disconnection of electricity due to overbilling, the defendant distributor argued the claim was barred by an exclusion of liability clause in its Conditions of Service.

The court held that the defendant could not rely on the clause because it had failed to adequately plead it in its statement of defence, and an amendment post-trial would be highly prejudicial to the self-represented plaintiff.

Furthermore, the court found the exclusion clause to be ambiguous in its application and interpreted contra proferentem against the defendant.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $24,000, and in favour of the defendant for $5,100 on its counterclaim for unpaid electricity.