Key Points

1. Motion to Dismiss:

   • 195 Ontario moved to dismiss the action due to 104 Canada's non-compliance with court orders and overall delay.
   • The court granted the dismissal, citing failures to comply with two court orders and delays in litigation.

2. Background:

   • 104 Canada and Optical Vision operated eye care clinics at the same address. Antranik Kechichian was involved in both businesses.
   • In 2018, 104 Canada leased the property from Optical Vision for ten years.

3. Prior Legal Actions:

   • In 2019, 195 Ontario sued Antranik and Optical Vision, winning a judgment in 2021 for damages and property possession.
   • 104 Canada was evicted in January 2022 and subsequently sued 195 Ontario.

4. Procedural Delays:

   • The court detailed numerous delays and failures by 104 Canada, including not appointing new legal counsel after their original lawyers withdrew.

5. Contested Adjournment:

   • On January 11, 2024, the court denied 104 Canada’s request for adjournment due to insufficient efforts to retain counsel.

6. Final Decision:

   • The action was dismissed due to non-compliance and delays.
   • 195 Ontario was awarded costs, with further instructions for resolving cost disputes. No amount was specified.