Tanya C. Walker

A neighbourhood association sought to enforce restrictive covenants and by-laws against a property owner who proposed to add eight new windows to the exterior side wall of his townhouse following fire damage repairs.

The owner challenged the validity of the restrictive covenants as vague, uncertain, and ambiguous, arguing they lacked objective criteria and could be enforced arbitrarily.

The court upheld the restrictive covenants as valid and enforceable, finding they were part of a building scheme designed to preserve uniformity of the community's exterior appearance.

The court distinguished building schemes from developer's restrictive covenants, noting that under a building scheme all owners share similar burdens and benefits.

The court granted the association's application for a declaration that the covenants were valid and enforceable, and that the owner was in breach.

The plaintiffs, Tajammul Hussain Rana and Premier Technical Consultant Ltd., brought an action alleging various causes of action, ultimately narrowing their claims to the intentional torts of fraud and deceit against Mohammad Zakir Ramzan and 2182224 Ontario Inc. operating as FHS Zoom.

The plaintiffs claimed they were induced to invest $500,000 in a non-party company, ET Zone Supplies Inc., based on Ramzan's alleged false representations, including his purported role as "Head of Investment Division" of ET Zone.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of civil fraud or deceit on a balance of probabilities.

The court concluded there was no material false representation by Ramzan that caused the plaintiffs' loss, and any initial misrepresentation was neutralized by the plaintiff's awareness of ET Zone's true principal.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The applicant sought an urgent order from the Superior Court of Justice to set aside a Small Claims Court default judgment and a writ of execution, which was impeding the imminent sale of her property.

The applicant, the respondent's former daughter-in-law, alleged the judgment was obtained without notice to punish her for divorce.

The court noted its uncertain jurisdiction over Small Claims judgments but acknowledged the urgency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impending property sale.

The court encouraged settlement, suggesting the sale proceeds be held in trust, and failing settlement, designated another judge to hear the urgent application the following day, providing specific procedural directions for electronic filing and service.

The appellants, Smiles First Corporation and Union Health and Dental Centre Inc., appealed the dismissal of their application under section 21 of the Commercial Tenancies Act and section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The core dispute involved a head lease assignment dated October 31, 2016, from the intermediate tenant to Smiles First, and the effect of the intermediate tenant's subsequent abandonment of the head lease on Smiles First's sublease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the head lease assignment was ineffective due to lack of landlord consent, Smiles First remained entitled to possession of the premises as a subtenant under the sublease, which survived the head lease surrender.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation after the defendant disseminated anonymous allegations.

The parties settled the action for $10,000 in damages, leaving costs to be determined by the court.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the settlement was less favourable than the offer and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $44,446.26, with the court noting that costs in defamation matters often exceed damages.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court finding that he had repudiated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the respondent's business.

The application judge granted rectification of the closing date, found that the appellant had waived the deadline for closing and delivery of landlord's consent, and that the appellant had agreed to pay interim rent.

The application judge also found that the landlord ultimately delivered consent in the form of a one-page handwritten document signed by all parties in September 2014.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual determinations regarding waiver or the interpretation of the landlord's consent document.

The Applicant, having successfully obtained judgment for damages in a prior application, sought partial indemnity costs.

The Respondent challenged the quantum of legal fees, arguing they were excessive and should be reduced by 25%.

The court, applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle of proportionality, found the Applicant's claimed time reasonable.

The Respondent's conduct, including delays in delivering records and cross-examinations, was noted as unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request for a reduction and awarded the Applicant the full amount of claimed partial indemnity costs.

The Applicant, a restaurant operator, sought damages for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and unpaid interim rent from the Respondent, who intended to purchase the Applicant's assets and lease assignment.

The Respondent failed to complete the purchase, arguing the APS was invalid due to a missed closing date and lack of landlord consent.

The court rectified the closing date, found the Respondent waived strict compliance with deadlines, agreed to pay interim rent, and that the Applicant delivered the landlord's consent.

The Respondent's failure to complete the APS constituted repudiation.

Judgment was awarded to the Applicant for damages and rent.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages against its former employee, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the employee's actions constituted misappropriation under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court dismissed the claim for declaratory relief because the plaintiff had not pleaded or proven that the employee was acting in a fiduciary capacity, which is a requirement under the statute.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to seek such a declaration in future bankruptcy proceedings if the employee becomes bankrupt.

Following a 14-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $64,200 in damages and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The court found the defendant's conduct, which included taking employer monies and intentional interference with economic relations, was tantamount to fraud.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of the action on a substantial indemnity basis and costs of the counterclaim on a partial indemnity basis, fixing total costs at $193,500.