Spencer Toole

The applicant condominium owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation for unreasonably restricting his ability to renovate his unit.

The corporation had imposed arbitrary timelines and limited service elevator access to two 20-minute windows, ignoring the applicant's explanations that more time was needed.

The court found the corporation's conduct unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests, ordered a reasonable construction schedule, and awarded special damages for the applicant's temporary accommodation and storage costs.

General damages were denied.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for an incapable person, brought a summary judgment motion against the incapable person's former attorney for property.

The attorney had transferred the incapable person's unencumbered residential property to himself in trust for his daughter for no consideration, subsequently sold it, and misappropriated funds from her bank accounts.

The court found the attorney breached his fiduciary duties and ordered him to pay damages of $2,550,000 for the property sale and $150,015 for the misappropriated funds, plus full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim, arguing it duplicated an existing application the defendants had filed at the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding an alleged bad faith eviction.

The court found that the counterclaim was an abuse of process as it arose from the same factual matrix and sought the same relief as the tribunal application.

The counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The tenant brought an application against the landlord for a declaration that a notice of termination was void, an accounting of distrained assets, and the release of seized property.

The landlord had re-entered the commercial premises after issuing a notice of default for rent arrears, but did so before the notice period stipulated in the lease had expired.

The court found the re-entry and termination unlawful, as the parties had contracted out of the statutory 15-day default period in favour of a specific notice period.

The court ordered the landlord to release the tenant's property and directed a trial of an issue to determine the tenant's damages.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order permitting it to enter the respondents' unit to inspect a staircase following noise and vibration complaints from the unit below.

The respondents refused entry, issued a trespass notice, and argued the request was unreasonable, made in bad faith, and statute-barred.

The court granted the application, finding the corporation had a statutory right and duty to inspect the unit upon reasonable notice, the application was not statute-barred, and prior mediation/arbitration was not required for disputes enforcing the Condominium Act.

The applicant law firm sought a declaration of entitlement to $32,100 held in trust by the respondent law firm, representing unpaid legal fees for services provided to a former client.

The respondent estate argued the claim was statute-barred and the applicant lacked standing.

The court found the respondent law firm's undertaking to protect the account was binding on the estate and stopped the limitation period from running.

The court declared the applicant entitled to payment subject to an assessment of the account, finding special circumstances warranted an extension of the statutory time limit for assessment due to the lack of particularity in the account and mutual delay.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a factoring agreement.

The defendants had previously delivered a Notice of Intent to Defend, but the plaintiff noted them in default without further notice or requesting a Statement of Defence.

The court found it unreasonable to note a self-represented party in default without notice after they had indicated an intent to participate.

The motion for default judgment was dismissed, the noting in default was set aside, and a timetable was established for the defendants to file a defence.

The plaintiffs, owners of a fitness club, sued the defendants for alleged misrepresentations regarding the availability of parking spaces and for failing to provide adequate alternative parking during construction.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the misrepresentation claims were barred by the 'four corners' clause in the lease agreement, the releases signed by the parties, and the expiry of the two-year limitation period, as there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment.

The court also found no triable issue regarding the alternative parking, as the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that membership cancellations were linked to parking issues.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving defendants were dismissed.