Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 19 ' 23, 2022)
Published date | 26 September 2022 |
Subject Matter | Corporate/Commercial Law, Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Real Estate and Construction, Corporate and Company Law, Contracts and Commercial Law, Unfair/ Wrongful Dismissal, Health & Safety, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Landlord & Tenant - Leases, Civil Law |
Law Firm | Blaney McMurtry LLP |
Author | Mr John Polyzogopoulos and Ines Ferreira |
Good afternoon.
Following are this week's summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 19, 2022.
In Bennett Law Chambers Professional Corporation v. Camcentre Holdings Inc., the Court dismissed an appeal of an application judge's finding that a Notice of Termination of a commercial lease pursuant to a demolition clause was not effective to terminate the lease because the landlord had not yet obtained a demolition permit prior to issuing its Notice of Termination. The Court rejected the landlord's argument that the commencement of asbestos abatement prior to obtaining a demolition permit constituted "the commencement of the demolition process" within the meaning of the lease. Justice Roberts dissented, determining that the application judge's interpretation of the lease as patently unreasonable.
Other topics this week included damages for wrongful dismissal and whether a costs award could include disbursements incurred for mandatory mediation, and security for costs.
Have a nice weekend,
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email
Ines Ferreira
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
Bennett Law Chambers Professional Corporation v. Camcentre Holdings Inc., 2022 ONCA 658
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Real Property, Commercial Leases, , Demolition Clauses, Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, O. Reg. 278/05 under the Ontario Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 6(1), Goodyear Canada Inc. v. Burnhamthorpe Square Inc. (1992), 41 O.R. (3d) 321, 166 D.L.R. (4th) 625 (C.A.), Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Mannai Investment Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd., [1997] 2 W.L.R. 945, [1997] A.C. 749 (H.L.), Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 21, Arnold v. 2261324 Manitoba Ltd. (1994), 97 Man. R. (2d) 216, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37
Pavlov v. The New Zealand and Australian Lamb Company Limited , 2022 ONCA 655
Keywords: Employment Law, Wrongful Dismissal, Damages, Civil Procedure, Costs, Disbursements, Mandatory Mediation, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24.1, Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R. (2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., 2015 ONSC 4189, Saltsov v. Rolnick, 2010 ONSC 6645
Short Civil Decisions
Ducharme Estate v. Thibodeau , 2022 ONCA 661
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Security for Costs, Frivolous and Vexatious, Rules of Civil Procedure, R. 61.06(1)(a), Health Genetic Center Corp. (Health Genetic Center) v. New Scientist Magazine, 2019 ONCA 576
CIVIL DECISIONS
Bennett Law Chambers Professional Corporation v. Camcentre Holdings Inc., 2022 ONCA 658
Feldman, Roberts and Favreau JJ.A
Counsel:
S. Zucker and N. J. Tourgis, for the appellant
B. M. Jenkins, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Real Property, Commercial Leases, , Demolition Clauses, Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, O. Reg. 278/05 under the Ontario Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 6(1), Goodyear Canada Inc. v. Burnhamthorpe Square Inc. (1992), 41 O.R. (3d) 321, 166 D.L.R. (4th) 625 (C.A.), Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Mannai Investment Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd., [1997] 2 W.L.R. 945, [1997] A.C. 749 (H.L.), Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 21, Arnold v. 2261324 Manitoba Ltd. (1994), 97 Man. R. (2d) 216, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37
facts:
In August 2015, the respondent tenant entered into an amending agreement that extended their five-year-term lease for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial