Ajay Duggal

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add a real estate agent, his brokerage, and an undisclosed third party as defendants in an aborted real estate transaction.

The original defendant purchaser alleged he was merely a front for the third party, orchestrated by the real estate agent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed claim for negligent misrepresentation disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the real estate agent, who owed a prima facie duty of care to the vendor regarding the identity of the purchaser.

Two consolidated applications regarding the ownership and sale of a residential property.

The applicants, Kuldeep Gill and the Estate of Amarjit Gill, sought a declaration of 100% ownership based on resulting or constructive trust, arguing the respondent Karnail Gill's initial contribution was a loan.

Karnail Gill sought partition and sale of the property, recognizing his registered one-third interest as a tenant in common.

The court dismissed the trust claims, finding Karnail contributed to the purchase and upkeep of the property, and ordered the property to be listed for sale with the proceeds divided equally among the three registered owners, subject to adjustments for mortgage, taxes, and rental income.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents and to compel the defendants to appear for continued examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff had previously conducted brief examinations for discovery of the individual defendants but failed to request the documents now sought.

The court dismissed the motion against the individual defendants, finding the plaintiff had his opportunity during discovery and failed to use it, and there was no evidence the requested documents were in their possession.

However, the court noted the plaintiff could still schedule an examination for discovery of the corporate defendant.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for specific performance regarding a commercial property, the defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff's motion was denied because it failed to disclose the purchase of an adequate replacement property.

The court found the plaintiff's non-disclosure inappropriate and awarded costs to the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the defendant's counsel's hourly rate from $700 to $350, fixing total costs at $32,238.35.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $54,767.35 following a trial where she was successful in obtaining spousal support.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was not a credible witness, engaged in bad faith conduct, and caused delays through late disclosure.

However, the court reduced the costs award because the applicant withdrew a $36,028.69 debt claim at the end of the trial.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $40,000 in costs, enforceable as spousal support by the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a 24-day family law trial regarding child custody, both parents sought costs.

The respondent father, who was awarded sole custody, sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $389,000 based on an offer to settle.

The court found the father was entitled to substantial indemnity costs but significantly reduced the quantum to approximately $107,000 due to his unreasonable behaviour which prolonged the trial.

Unusually, the court also ordered the Office of the Children's Lawyer to pay $20,000 of those costs jointly and severally, finding that the OCL's adversarial stance and failure to seek court assistance regarding the father's non-cooperation protracted the litigation.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their 13-year-old son.

The child had been living primarily with the father and paternal grandparents since separation.

A Section 30 assessment recommended shared parenting or sole custody to the mother if the father did not move away from his parents, but the court found the assessors favoured the mother.

Following a judicial interview where the child expressed a strong preference to live with his father and fear of his mother, and considering the father's ability to provide a stable environment, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The mother was granted access every other weekend, with overnight visits conditional on OCL approval of sleeping arrangements, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.