Adil Mudasser Habib

Following the dismissal of the Mortgagees' motion to discharge construction liens based on alleged mortgage priority, the successful Lien Claimants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $15,435.02, finding that the Mortgagees acted unreasonably by proceeding with a deficient evidentiary record, changing the scope of the motion, and insisting on an urgent hearing despite the flaws in their case.

The moving party mortgagees brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge construction liens registered by the responding party lien claimants, arguing their mortgage had priority.

The court found the mortgage was not a collateral or building mortgage.

However, because earlier development work on the same improvement predated the mortgage registration, the mortgage was a subsequent mortgage under section 78(5) and (6).

The mortgagees failed to meet their onus of proving they did not receive written notice of a lien prior to the mortgage advance, as their only evidence was a bald hearsay statement from an assignee.

The motion to discharge the liens was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding the facts supported judgment in the amounts set out in the draft judgment.

The court also declared that the judgment debts arose from fraudulent misrepresentations under section 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and would survive any present or future bankruptcy proceedings by the defendants.

No costs were sought or ordered.

The plaintiff, Anderson Sheet Metal Ltd., brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant, Comtract Air Compressors Inc., for unpaid invoices.

The central issue was whether an email exchange between the parties refreshed the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the email exchange constituted a clear and unequivocal acknowledgment of the debt for some, but not all, outstanding invoices.

The court also determined the appropriate interest rate for the successful claims.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit organization, moved for default judgment against two defendants, Darren Pennock (former Executive Director) and Nancie Parker, whose statements of defence were struck.

The plaintiff alleged Pennock committed extensive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by misappropriating funds, and that Parker was liable for knowing assistance, willful blindness, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted judgment for damages, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages against Pennock, declaring the judgment non-dischargeable in bankruptcy due to fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The applicant, Universal Engineered Restoration, brought an application under Rule 14 for the distribution of $305,987.52 held in the trust account of the respondent lawyer, Harpreet Khukh, due to competing claims from other respondents, Ayman Mohammed Alkhatib and 8995079 Canada Inc. Mr. Khukh had paid the funds into court.

On consent of the parties, the application was converted into an action, with Universal to deliver a Statement of Claim and the other respondents to deliver a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The application was dismissed without costs against Mr. Khukh, and costs of the proceeding to date were ordered to be in the cause of the converted action.

The applicants brought an urgent motion for a writ of possession and a declaration that the respondent occupant had no legal right to occupy the premises, which had been ordered sold by the court.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously declined jurisdiction after the respondents claimed the occupant was a purchaser.

The court found it had jurisdiction, determined the occupant had no legal right to occupy as he had not fulfilled the deposit schedule or paid rent, and granted the writ of possession.

The court also ordered that the co-owner respondent's agreement to a reasonable market offer for the sale of the property be dispensed with if not provided within 48 hours of the applicant accepting it.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against two unit owners for compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The corporation alleged the respondents engaged in aggressive, intimidating, and harassing behaviour toward the board, staff, and other owners, including physical altercations, posting inappropriate notices, and installing an unauthorized wildlife camera.

The court found the respondents breached their obligations under sections 117 and 119 of the Act and granted the requested compliance orders, prohibiting them from harassing others or disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the property.