2601032 Ontario et al vs. Richmond Medical Centre

In 2019, I was successful at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in advocating for a tenant who was involved in a dispute with its landlord. The landlord was breaching the lease agreement by charging rent for more than the actual square footage occupied by the tenant, charging separately for utilities contrary to the terms of the lease and failing to provide proof of its operating expenses.

At the hearing, Justice Hockin found that the landlord had been significantly overcharging the tenant and ordered the landlord to repay the amount of $67,755.28 and to provide proof its operating costs. The amount of monthly rent payable by the tenant was reduced by $4,613.10 per month which resulted in a reduction of rent over the course of the lease of over $1,100,000.00.

Men at Work General Contractors Ltd. v. MacDonald et al

In Men at Work General Contractors vs. MacDonald, I was successful in several appeals made to the Divisional Court of Appeal in Toronto.

I represented a homeowner who was involved in a dispute with a contractor where there were significant cost overruns on the project. The contractor brought a construction lien action claiming $60,937.76.

At trial, Master Polika found that the contractor’s construction lien failed. He ordered that the parties should each bear 50% of the cost overruns and the homeowner was to pay $15,002.00.

The contractor was displeased with the outcome at trial and brought a motion to oppose Master Polika’s report to an Ontario Superior Court motion’s judge.

The Superior Court motion’s judge overturned the decision of Master Polika. We appealed to the Divisional Court of Appeal. We were successful on a motion for an extension of time in which to bring the appeal based on the circumstances of the case. (

The contractor brought a separate appeal relating to the legal costs which had been awarded.

Ultimately, I was successful in appealing the motion judge’s decision in the Divisional Court of Appeal on that basis that her reasons for overturning Master Polika’s decision were inadequate and that she failed to cite and follow the proper standard of review. (

I was also successful in defending the appeal brought by the contractor concerning the legal costs.(