Theodore B. Rotenberg

The applicant, 961838 Ontario Ltd. o/a MacGyver Autobody & Collision, sought a declaration of its right to a five-year renewal of its commercial lease with the respondents.

The respondents argued the applicant was in default and not entitled to renewal.

The court found that the applicant was not in default regarding signage or rent increase, and, in any event, would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The applicant was granted the right to a five-year renewal under the lease.

The defendant, Corey Sean Libfeld, brought a motion seeking a stay of the action or, alternatively, to prohibit the plaintiff, Pittsburgh Steel Group (PSG), from adducing certain evidence on the basis that PSG’s principal, Zoran Radonjic, violated the deemed undertaking rule by filing documents obtained in discovery with a complaint to the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO).

The court found a violation of the rule but declined to stay the action, instead prohibiting PSG from adducing specific evidence and ordering costs as a deterrent.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal arising from a trial judgment concerning oppression and conspiracy claims related to a condominium corporation.

The appellants (original defendants) challenged the trial judge's findings that claims against one defendant were not statute-barred, the award of punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) cross-appealed the prejudgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's decisions on all contested issues, including the application of limitation periods, the appropriateness of punitive damages for egregious conduct, and the discretion in awarding substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring it to post security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that because its statement of claim included a request for an oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act, it should be immune from a security for costs order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly determined the true essence of the action was a claim for unpaid invoices, not oppression, and therefore the security for costs order was appropriate.

Three brothers engaged in a protracted dispute over the proceeds and operations of their family farming and construction businesses.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant owed significant sums for personal expenses improperly charged to the company and imbalances in shareholder loan accounts.

The court found the company's records unreliable and ordered a formal accounting for the loan accounts and gas expenses.

Most other claims and counterclaims were dismissed as unproven or statute-barred under the Limitations Act, though one plaintiff was ordered to repay misappropriated fire insurance and sawmill proceeds.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The Court of Appeal remitted the issue of whether a condominium corporation (MTCC 1056) was entitled to be indemnified by its property manager (Brookfield) for costs arising from a negligent estoppel certificate.

The property manager had been found negligent in preparing the certificate, making the condominium corporation vicariously liable to the plaintiff.

The court held that an implied right of indemnity exists at common law for a principal found vicariously liable for its agent's negligence.

Brookfield was ordered to indemnify MTCC 1056 for the costs paid to the plaintiff and the costs of the trial and appeal.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and Rule 20 to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The action claimed against the defendants under the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act for interest and costs, and was also challenged on the basis of a limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the legal question of whether interest and costs are covered by the CLA trust was unsettled and required a full factual record at trial.

Similarly, on the limitations issue, the court determined there was a genuine issue requiring trial, particularly concerning the "appropriate means" element of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Following a trial in which the defendants successfully defended multiple claims including breach of contract, spoliation, unjust enrichment, and property-related torts, the court determined costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs and recovery of professional fees for several witnesses characterized as participating experts.

The court confirmed that participating experts may justify reasonable compensation where their expertise arises from involvement in the underlying events.

Applying Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles of proportionality, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the defendants’ offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Developers of two condominium projects alleged that a concrete forming contractor breached fixed‑price agreements by refusing to commence work when directed.

The plaintiffs argued that start dates were not essential terms of the August 18, 2005 handwritten agreement and that the contractor was required to begin work whenever the sites were ready.

The defendant maintained that predetermined start dates were essential to its pricing and that no binding contract existed once the projects were significantly delayed.

The court found that the parties had contemplated mid‑ to late‑October 2005 start dates and that these dates were an essential contractual term tied to price and scheduling.

There was no agreement allowing the plaintiffs to dictate start dates based solely on site readiness and no waiver of the start‑date requirement during subsequent contract negotiations.

The action was dismissed.

Following dismissal of a motion challenging confirmation of a case management master's report, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an earlier offer to settle under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that although the offer technically met Rule 49.10 requirements, it lacked meaningful compromise and therefore declined to strictly apply the rule’s presumptive cost consequences.

Considering the principles of reasonableness, the complexity of the motion, the volume of materials, and factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs at a global amount.

Costs were awarded on a discretionary basis rather than strictly under the offer‑to‑settle regime.