The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50228
Law TiMes • March 21, 2011 was $5,375. No retroactive support was awarded. Th ere was little evidence to assist in analysis of whether retroactive child support was appropriate. Mongroo v. Mongroo (Dec. 22, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Czutrin J., File No. 03-FP-283732) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1083 (35 pp.). Injunctions INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF Plaintiff's pursuit of individual defendant gross misuse of equitable relief Action arose from postings on Internet about plaintiff . Plain- tiff attempted to enforce order against individual defendant that granted interlocutory in- junction against SCAM.COM prohibiting broadcast or post- ing of defamatory statements concerning plaintiff s. Plaintiff added individual defendant as defendant on consent. Plain- tiff brought motion seeking to obtain interlocutory injunction requiring individual defendant to remove all video postings on website that had content con- cerning plaintiff s. Plaintiff s sought injunction prohibit- ing individual defendant from distributing any information concerning plaintiff s. Plain- tiff claimed postings were false and defamatory. Individual defendant argued information was true. Individual defendant brought motion for order di- recting previous Anton Piller order did not apply to individ- ual defendant. Previous order for interlocutory injunction was dissolved. Plaintiff s did not come to court with clean hands when plaintiff s obtained ex parte order for interlocutory injunction. Plaintiff s repre- sented to court that MavMan was anonymous when plaintiff s knew it was individual defen- dant and knew where to fi nd individual defendant. Plain- tiff s then pursued individual defendant. It was gross misuse of equitable relief. Plaintiff misused orders when plaintiff s represented to other Internet sites that order applied to them. Action languished. Plaintiff s did not off er compelling rea- son for delay. Court would not have concluded words in issue were clearly defamatory and impossible to justify. Anton Piller order was not intended to apply to individual defen- dant. Individual defendant's computer and hard drive were to be returned to individual defendant. Hutchens v. SCAM.COM (Jan. 5, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Horkins J., File No. CV09-373581) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1131 (39 pp.). Landlord And Tenant POSSESSION Landlord may have taken advantage of superior bargaining position but this did not amount to duress Application by landlord for writ of possession due to termi- nation of tenancy for failure to pay rent. Tenants argued court did not have jurisdiction over residential tenancy and lease was signed under duress. Ten- ants argued they needed quick accommodation and landlord insisted they sign commercial lease. Application allowed. Landlord may have taken ad- vantage of superior bargain- ing position but this did not amount to duress. Tenant were leasing retail store with associ- ated living space, which was not a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (Ont.). Tenants intended to use commercial space. Ten- ants paid $500 deposit and last month's rent and then made no further payments despite 16 months' occupancy. Lease ter- minated as of April 29, 2010, when landlord gave notice, and writ of possession granted. Tri- al would be held to determine arrears of rent owing. Lei v. Crawford (Jan. 17, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Perell J., File No. CV-10-409449) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1157 (4 pp.). TERM OF LEASE Tenant unjustly enriched to detriment of landlord Action by landlord for dam- ages. Parties entered into com- mercial lease. Tenant agreed in lease to pay to relocate gas meter. Parties understood that tenant would pay its consump- tion of gas to utility company. Tenant never arranged for in- stallation of separate gas meter, which resulted in landlord pay- ing for tenant's gas consump- tion. Action allowed. Tenant was unjustly enriched to detri- ment of landlord. Tenant re- ceived free gas for time period in question. Dominet Corp. v. Corner-Edge Products Ltd. (Dec. 9, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., MacDonald J., File No. CV-08-00365228) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1159 (4 pp.). Municipal Law COUNCILLORS Councillor contravened s. 5(1)(a )of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (Ont.) City acquired property because of unpaid taxes. City planned to demolish building. Appli- cant was abutting land owner who off ered $1 to buy property for purpose of business expan- sion. Applicant's proposal was accepted. Respondent was member of council. Concern was raised at council meeting as to whether general public should be given opportunity to purchase property. Respondent attended meetings. Report recommended property be sold by public tender. Respondent sought to view property with interest in bidding on property. Committee passed resolution adopting recommendations in report. Respondent did not declare interest in subject of report. Respondent submit- ted bid to purchase property at $5,790 and applicant submit- ted bid at $100. Respondent disclosed interest. Applicant and respondent were only two bidders. Property was trans- ferred to respondent as suc- cessful bidder. Application was for declaration respondent CASELAW contravened s. 5 of Municipal Confl ict of Interest Act (Ont.). Application was allowed. Re- spondent contravened s. 5(1) (a) of Act. Respondent had indirect pecuniary interest in sale of property. Respondent was present when committee of whole considered sale of property and respondent did not disclose interest. Pursuant to s. 10(1)(b) it was ordered that respondent be disqualifi ed from being member of coun- cil for four years from date of order. Applicant's claim for restitution under s. 10(1)(c) was dismissed. Th ere was no evidence respondent paid less than fair market value because of respondent's position. Mondoux v. Tuchenhagen (Dec. 8, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Shaw J., File No. CV-09-0128) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1167 (28 pp.). GENERAL Board did not err by ignoring references to protection of silhouette of Legislative Building Motion by Legislative Assem- bly of Ontario for leave to ap- peal decision of board approv- ing application to authorize demolition of hotel and devel- opment of two residential tow- ers. Assembly opposed project on ground that it would inter- fere with public's view of Leg- islative Building. Motion dis- missed. Th ere was no reason to doubt correctness of board's conclusion that postcard view was appropriate view. Board considered assembly's argu- ments and applicable policies carefully. Board did not err by ignoring references to protec- tion of silhouette of Legislative Building contained in second- ary plan and related planning documents. Legislative Assembly of Ontario v. Avenue-Yorkville Develop- ments Ltd. (Jan. 12, 2011, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Harvison Young J., File No. 269/10) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1168 (10 pp.). Real Property CONDOMINIUMS Plaintiff rightful owner of condominium Plaintiff transferred condo- minium to defendant. Plain- tiff claimed transfer was done for convenience. Defendant claimed defendant purchased condominium by series of monthly payments made by defendant's corporation. Plaintiff claimed payments were interest payments on money plaintiff deposited with defendant for investment and were not to purchase condo- minium. Plaintiff sought re- turn of condominium and of $340,000 plaintiff advanced to defendant for investment purposes. Claim was allowed. Documentary evidence was consistent with plaintiff 's po- sition. Defendant behaviour after transfer of title to unit was consistent with plaintiff 's ongoing ownership. Plaintiff proved plaintiff was rightful owner of condominium. De- fendant did not prove plaintiff was willing and informed in- vestor in Rent Gard and that www.lawtimesnews.com Starting from $62.50 per month plaintiff took risk that invest- ment would fail. Defendant failed to take due precautions with Rent Gard investment and used plaintiff 's money in hazardous and risky venture without plaintiff 's permission or knowledge. Defendants were jointly and severally li- able to repay plaintiff . Hawaldar v. Solomon (Dec. 30, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Lauwers J., File No. CV-07-085696-00) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1186 (24 pp.). LIENS Condominium corporation properly registered lien on title Application by condominium owner for removal of lien placed on title to her condominium unit. Unit under owner's unit was fl ooded with water. Con- dominium corporation in- curred signifi cant expense in relation to leak. Corporation advised owner on two occa- sions of leak and that owner was responsible for cost of re- pairs. Owner refused to pay. Corporation registered lien. Application dismissed. Cor- poration properly registered lien in accordance with notice provisions under Condomin- ium Act, 1998 (Ont.). Th ere was suffi cient evidence to draw reasonable inference that water leaked from owner's unit. Chan v. Toronto Standard Con- dominium Corp. No. 1834 (Jan. 6, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Al- len J., File No. CV-09-390843; CV-10-407970) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1188 (9 pp.). PAGE 19 Wills And Estates ESTATE ADMINISTRATION Deceased's daughter qualified over deceased's siblings as "next of kin" for purposes of s. 29(1)(b) of Estates Act Motion for appointment of es- tate trustee during litigation. Deceased died without will. De- ceased's relatives disagreed over what traditions and observances should be followed in wake of his death. Each side sought au- thority over deceased's remains. Duties and authority of per- sonal representative includes responsibility for disposing of deceased's remains. Deceased had two natural children. De- ceased had no spouse at time of his death. Applicants were deceased's siblings, and respon- dent was deceased's daughter. Daughter was appointed as es- tate trustee of estate. Between deceased's siblings and his daughter, daughter was entitled to priority for purposes of court appointment as administrator of his estate under s. 29(1) of Es- tates Act (Ont.). Daughter qual- ifi ed as deceased's "next of kin" for purposes of s. 29(1)(b) of Act. Daughter was more closely related to deceased than his sib- lings. Daughter was related to deceased by blood in fi rst degree, whereas siblings were related by blood in second degree. Buswa v. Canzoneri (Dec. 22, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Stinson J., File No. 05-93/10) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1212 (6 pp.). When More is Too Much Irrelevant cases chewing up your research time? Get the best cases first. There's no bones about it. BestCase not only has a comprehensive collection of unreported decisions, but our diamond image helps you quickly find decisions selected by experts to identify the most relevant cases first. BestCase is the only online source for Canada's leading law reports including: • Canadian Criminal Cases – since 1898 • Dominion Law Reports – since 1912 • Labour Arbitration Cases – since 1948 ... plus others! • Renowned case summaries • Case citator It also contains case law you won't find anywhere else. You can print or download PDFs of both reported and unreported decisions – no photocopying required. BestCase allows you to track research, generate reports and manage your passwords using the Disbursement Manager. Contact your Account Manager to compare BestCase to your current research services! www.canadalawbook.ca a Thomson Reuters business