Wolfgang Kaufmann

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs fixed at $25,000, plus disbursements and applicable HST.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) sought a confidentiality order to prevent the disclosure of certain commercial information in an upcoming summary trial regarding a terminated commercial lease.

The moving party relied on a confidentiality provision in the lease agreement.

The court applied the Sherman Estate test and interpreted the lease's confidentiality clause, finding that the clause explicitly exempted litigation between the parties.

Without an applicable confidentiality clause, the moving party failed to establish an important commercial interest that outweighed the public interest in open courts.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant parents and respondent son brought competing applications under the Partition Act regarding the ownership of a residential property.

The parents claimed 100% beneficial ownership based on a resulting or constructive trust, while the son claimed 100% beneficial ownership based on monetary gifts and his legal title.

The court found that the property was purchased as part of a family real estate joint venture.

The court declared the parties to be 50:50 owners, subject to a resulting trust recognizing the parents' financial contributions, and ordered the partition and sale of the property with the net proceeds to be divided equally.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding the partition and sale of a jointly owned property.

The defendants refused to conclude the settlement, arguing they faced contingent tax liability because the non-resident plaintiff failed to obtain a clearance certificate under s. 116 of the Income Tax Act.

The court found that the defendants had discharged their tax liability by withholding and remitting 25% of the purchase price and rental income to the CRA, and therefore faced no contingent tax liability.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The plaintiff tenant moved for an injunction or relief from forfeiture after the defendant landlord terminated its commercial lease for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had a history of late payments, and its rent cheque was returned due to a frozen bank account.

The premises had also suffered two floods, and the tenant had ignored fire code violations.

The court denied the injunction but granted relief from forfeiture, noting the disproportionate impact termination would have on the tenant's investment.

Relief was granted on strict conditions, including payment of all rent arrears, expenses, and full indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of a defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought costs of approximately $19,667, arguing the implied denial rule made a reply unnecessary.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly plead the factual basis for rescission of a key agreement, contrary to Rules 25.07(3) and 25.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, because a different version of facts must be specifically pleaded in a reply.

Although the plaintiff successfully resisted summary judgment, the inadequate pleadings contributed to the motion being brought.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that neither party receive costs of the summary judgment motion.