Just Law.

Here are the search results which have been extracted from our database of legal proceedings & articles.




Case ID Court Summary Proceeding Date
2017 ONSC 2925 Ontario Supreme Court The landlord now seeks costs for the partialsummary judgment. The landlord submitted a costs outline claiming $8,742. The tenant submitted that the amount claimed for costs was excessive and that theappropriate award is $4,500, all inclusive, which award would be just the costs of the partialsummary judgment motion.Read More Default
2017 ONSC 3363 Ontario Supreme Court BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M. E. VALLEE COUNSEL: Dani Frodis, Counsel, for the ApplicantPeter Callahan, Counsel, for the RespondentHEARD: November 24, 2016 COSTS ENDORSEMENT The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadingsbecause he had failed to comply with various court orders and had failed to make fulldisclosure. Among them, the respondent was required to sign authorizations directing variousfinancial institutions to provide information to the applicant, and directing a real estateagent and lawyer to provide information regarding the respondent's offer to purchase ahouse at a time when he stated he had no money and could barely make ends meet. In paragraph 11 of my endorsement dated November 24, 2016,I found that the respondent's motion was a last minute attempt to delay the applicant'smotion. Read More Approved
2017 ONSC 3396 Ontario Supreme Court The plaintiff sent numerous letters to the defendant to explain that the defendant had beennoted in default, was precluded from filing a defence and that the landlord would seek defaultjudgment if the tenant did not seek to set aside the noting in default. Given the circumstances of thisnotices to the defendant commencingproceed with this motion, and the lackCourt determined that the motion should, case, and the number of letters, telephone calls andFebruary 2017 regarding the plaintiff's intention toof any response from the defendant until May 30, thisin all of the circumstances, be heard. Based on the evidence before thisCourt, and a perusal of the lease and documents, I am satisfied that the defendant was in defaulton the lease, that the appropriate notice regarding default and intention to pursue claims againstthe tenant pursuant to the lease was provided and that the landlord plaintiff has taken allreasonable steps to mitigate its damages and to lease the premises to a new tenant.Read More Declined
2017 ONSC 2396 Ontario Supreme Court In order to establish liability of the third parties, the Personal Defendants, the burden ofproof on the Landlord is to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that: The tenant is in arrears of rent; The tenant has fraudulently removed, conveyed or carried off the tenant's goodsor chattels; The tenant did so to prevent the landlord from distraining for the arrears of rent;and The third parties willfully and knowingly aided or assisted the tenant infraudulently removing or concealing the goods and chattels with the intent ofpreventing the landlord from distraining against them. These include: On January 30, 2014, the Landlord applied to the Alcohol and GamingCommission of Ontario to have Baffo's liquor licence transferred to the Landlord, and itwas transferred to the Landlord on March 14, 2014. In Hodgkinson v. Rodd, Ferguson J. awarded punitive damages against a landlord, takinginto consideration the landlord's inconsistent exercise of both forfeiture and distress and the factthat the landlord had, by its conduct, prejudiced the tenant's ability to prove his damages.Read More Pending
2017 ONSC 3279 Ontario Supreme Court As a result, they seek an order rescinding or staying the operation of the ConditionalFoundation Building Permit issued by the city "Until compliance with applicable law isestablished for the exterior wall of the proposed building." The Evidence The applicants rely on two affidavits sworn by Dan Dencev, the property manager oftheir building. The City's position can be summarized as follows: the application is moot because the City has now issued a building permitfor the project and no appeal has been taken from that action; site plan approval is a prerequisite for the issuance of a building permitunder s. 8(2) of the Building Code Act but is not for a conditional permitissued under s. 8(3); the applicants received notice of the proposed rezoning of 356 DundasStreet and made no appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which is theappropriate appeal route; and in any event, the zero metre setback pre-existed rezoning and is theexisting setback for all properties located in the Downtown Area zone in the City, which includes these two properties. The chief building official shall issue a permit referred to in subsection unless, the proposed building, construction or demolition will contravenethis Act, the building code or any other applicable law 1 Even though all requirements have not been met to obtain a permit undersubsection, the chief building official may issue a conditional permit forany stage of construction if, 1 Subsections to are not included here because none apply.Read More Call in to confirm
2017onsc3406 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Default
2017onsc3403 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Approved
2017onsc3396 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Declined
2017onsc3161 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Pending
2017onsc3074 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Call in to confirm
2017onsc3406 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Default
2017onsc3403 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Approved
2017onsc3396 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Declined
2017onsc3161 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Pending
2017onsc3074 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Call in to confirm
2017onsc3406 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Default
2017onsc3403 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Approved
2017onsc3396 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Declined
2017onsc3161 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Pending
2017onsc3074 Ontario Supreme Court Here, you will see the summarized content which is pulled from our back-end. By using summariation api's and NLP libraries, we are able to... Read More Call in to confirm