Teodora Prpa

This action arose from a townhouse development project where Sundance Development Corporation (construction manager) and Islington Chauncey Residences Corp. (developer) disputed their services agreement.

Sundance claimed unpaid fees and for materials, asserting Islington repudiated the contract.

Islington counterclaimed for excess construction management costs and damages due to Sundance's alleged negligent management.

The court found that Islington did not repudiate the contract and that Sundance breached the agreement by unilaterally withdrawing services and demanding payments not yet due.

Sundance's claims and lien were dismissed.

Islington's counterclaim was partially granted for replacement construction management costs, steel column rectification, and sprinkler head changes due to Sundance's negligence, resulting in a net judgment in Islington's favour.

The applicants sought the appointment of an Inspector to investigate the management and affairs of two companies, Morris Kerbel Holdings Limited and Paladium Construction Limited, alleging oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct by the respondents under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants had not met the second and third parts of the three-part test for appointing an inspector, specifically regarding the necessity and appropriateness of such an extraordinary remedy given that information could be obtained through ordinary litigation tools like an oppression proceeding.

The court also noted concerns about the broad scope, unknown costs, and lack of company resources to fund the investigation.

The defendants brought a second motion under Rule 21.01 to strike portions of the plaintiff's seventh amended statement of claim, alleging non-compliance with a previous ruling.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to add a new plaintiff and new statutory causes of action.

The court granted the motion to strike references to previously discontinued defendants and a claim of fraudulent concealment, finding them improper or insufficiently pleaded.

However, the court dismissed the motion to strike new consumer protection claims and the challenge based on limitation periods, deeming these issues premature for a pleadings motion.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to add a new plaintiff was granted.

Winterland Airfield Holdings Ltd. appealed a Superior Court judgment that granted Collingwood Aviation Partners Ltd. (CAPL) declarations of unimpeded access to airport lands and exemption from user fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's interpretation of an Operating Agreement and finding of an implied easement for unimpeded access.

The court also upheld the finding that Winterland could not charge user fees for this access and that Winterland failed to prove CAPL was underinsured.

The applicant was successful on the merits of its application and sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an indemnity clause in the operating agreement.

The court held that the contractual phrase 'all costs' does not necessarily dictate the scale of costs, which remains discretionary under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, calculating the amount using the 61% ratio presented by the respondent's own costs outline, resulting in an all-inclusive award of $311,228.77.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent Receiver, representing Hillmount Capital Inc., was successful.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appellants, Celine and Richard Pizale, to pay the Receiver partial indemnity costs, fixed at $3,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellants, Celine and Richard Pizale, sought to appeal orders approving the sale of their partially-renovated property by a receiver and an administration order.

They argued they had an automatic right of appeal under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) or, alternatively, should be granted leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal dismissed their panel review motion, affirming the chambers judge's decision that no automatic right of appeal existed as the sale approval order did not result in a loss beyond that already worked by the unappealed appointment order.

The court also found no basis to grant leave to appeal, concluding that the appeal did not raise an issue of general importance or prima facie merit, and would hinder the receivership process.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $230,000, arguing that the plaintiff's unproven allegations of fraud justified an elevated award.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs of approximately $39,000.

The court agreed that unproven fraud allegations warrant higher costs, but found the defendants' claim excessive, particularly the $40,000 spent preparing brief costs submissions.

Costs were fixed at $200,000 all-inclusive.

Collingwood Aviation Partners Ltd. (CAPL) applied for a declaration that it had a common law easement and contractual rights to full access to the adjacent airport lands owned by Winterland Airfield Holdings Ltd. (WAH).

WAH had erected fences restricting CAPL's access, citing safety concerns, and sought to impose user fees and increased insurance requirements.

The court found that CAPL had both contractual and common law easement rights to unimpeded access, as the properties had a symbiotic historical relationship.

The court ordered the removal of the restrictive fencing, declared that WAH could not charge user fees for access, and dismissed WAH's application regarding insurance.