Tanya C. Walker

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.

In a family dispute over their mother's property, the defendant sister sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The moving plaintiff sister sought an order permitting her to attend the cross-examination of their mother on her affidavit.

The court reviewed the law on excluding co-parties from examinations to prevent the tailoring of evidence or intimidation.

The court ordered that the moving plaintiff be excluded from the mother's cross-examination, directing that only counsel, an interpreter, and the mother be present.

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.

The tenant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the landlord net damages for property damage to a leased commercial premises.

The tenant advanced four grounds of appeal, including evidentiary rulings, credibility assessments, and the trial judge's failure to advise her to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court awarded the landlord substantial indemnity costs due to a Rule 49 offer to settle and the tenant's confusing and unnecessarily expensive approach to the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04(1) to seek payment of expert fees, amend its statement of claim, and obtain certificates of pending litigation (CPL) after the action was set down for trial.

The Master granted leave due to the defendants' ongoing failure to comply with production orders, which constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

The defendants were ordered to pay $10,000 in wasted expert fees caused by their piecemeal production.

While leave to amend the statement of claim was granted, the request for CPLs was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable claim to an interest in land, as the underlying agreement did not establish a fiduciary relationship or joint venture.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to vary a consent judgment and amend a statement of claim, the court determined costs payable to the successful defendants.

One defendant sought costs payable forthwith, while the plaintiff argued any award should be set off against an outstanding amount owed under a prior consent judgment.

The court held that the costs award and the debt under the consent judgment were liquidated mutual obligations, requiring legal set‑off.

Costs payable to that defendant were therefore credited against the amount owed under the consent judgment, while costs payable to the other defendant were ordered payable forthwith.

The court also assessed the reasonable quantum of costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

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.

The plaintiff moved to vary a consent judgment arising from a three-party settlement and to lift a stay imposed on his separate action after the First Nation defendant defaulted on later settlement instalments.

The court held that a consent judgment may be rectified only on grounds going to the formation of the underlying agreement, not merely because of subsequent non-performance, and found no evidence of fraud, mistake, or other vitiating factor.

Relief was also unavailable under Rule 49.09 because the settlement had merged into the consent judgment, and the court declined to invoke inherent jurisdiction to rewrite a bargain negotiated with counsel.

The motion was dismissed, leaving the plaintiff to pursue enforcement remedies under the existing judgment.

Competing summary judgment motions arose from disputes over several properties allegedly subject to trust arrangements and financial contributions.

The moving party sought summary judgment transferring two Ontario properties based on trust agreements, while the opposing parties sought to strike the action in favour of a separate application.

The court held that material factual conflicts regarding alleged breaches of trust payment obligations and the interpretation of the trust agreements required a trial.

Claims relating to two other Ontario properties were dismissed as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and barred by res judicata following dismissal of an earlier action.

Claims regarding a foreign property were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because the property had never been transferred to the defendants.

Competing summary judgment motions arose from disputes over several properties allegedly subject to trust arrangements and financial contributions.

The moving party sought summary judgment transferring two Ontario properties based on trust agreements, while the opposing parties sought to strike the action in favour of a separate application.

The court held that material factual conflicts regarding alleged breaches of trust payment obligations and the interpretation of the trust agreements required a trial.

Claims relating to two other Ontario properties were dismissed as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and barred by res judicata following dismissal of an earlier action.

Claims regarding a foreign property were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because the property had never been transferred to the defendants.