Ajay Pal Singh Duggal

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for repayment of investment funds and to amend their Statement of Claim to plead fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants sought to remove a Mareva injunction.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their Statement of Claim, maintained the Mareva injunction, and granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs for $1,617,679.53, finding fraudulent misrepresentation by the principal defendant.

Issues of additional quantum owed and punitive damages were reserved for trial.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and the noting of default, arguing they were not properly served and lacked notice of the default proceedings and the uncontested trial.

They also asserted an arguable defence on the merits.

The court found the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of establishing proper service and did not follow the "better practice" of notifying the defendants of the default or the uncontested trial.

The court also determined that the defendants had an arguable defence with an "air of reality." The motion was granted, setting aside the default judgment and noting of default, lifting writs of seizure and sale, and granting leave for the defendants to file their Statement of Defence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim and granting the respondents' counterclaim in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's factual findings or errors of law.

The appellant's arguments regarding title ownership at the time of contract signing and the need for consent for title transfer were rejected, as the seller was able to convey good title at closing and the appellant had entered into an amendment with knowledge of the title change.

The appellant failed to tender the purchase price, justifying the forfeiture of the deposit.

The appellants, operators of a cabinet-making business, appealed a permanent injunction that prevented them from causing a noise nuisance to an adjoining law office in a mixed-use condominium complex.

The injunction was initially granted by the Superior Court after the appellants failed to mitigate the noise despite multiple opportunities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's findings that an unreasonable nuisance existed, that the legal test for nuisance was properly applied, and rejecting the appellants' arguments that the respondents should have taken measures to reduce the noise or that statutory authority permitted the nuisance.

The appellants sought to appeal two judgments.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the first judgment (October 2020 Judgment) because a prior appeal of that judgment had been dismissed for delay or abandoned, constituting an impermissible collateral attack.

The court declined to exercise its power to set aside the prior dismissal, emphasizing that proper procedural rules must be followed for such a request.

The appeal concerning the second judgment (February 2021 Judgment) was adjourned and will be rescheduled.

Costs thrown away were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant, KB Group Inc., sought a declaration that four agreements of purchase and sale for commercial condominium units were terminated and that the individual respondent was personally liable for damages.

The respondents, Dr. Satinder Kaur Saroya Medicine Professional Corporation and Dr. Satinder Kaur Saroya, opposed the termination and personal liability.

The court found that the agreements did not grant the applicant a unilateral right to terminate and were not terminated by the doctrine of frustration.

The court converted the remaining issues of repudiation, promissory estoppel, and illegality of the agreements or a collateral agreement into an action for trial, citing the need for extensive factual findings and the risk of inconsistent findings if resolved by partial summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Paradise Homes North West Inc., moved for summary judgment against the defendant, Indervir Singh Sidhu, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The defendant defaulted on a deposit and failed to close the transaction.

The defendant argued frustration of contract due to market conditions and an assignment fee, and alleged the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court rejected the frustration arguments, finding market fluctuations and financing difficulties were not unforeseen supervening events, and the assignment fee was reasonable.

The court also found the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff did not reasonably mitigate damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for damages totaling $82,059.50.

The applicant sought divorce, spousal support (retroactive, quantum, duration, security), repayment of $36,028.69, and removal from a corporation.

The court granted the divorce, found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, and ordered retroactive and ongoing periodic support based on imputed income for the respondent.

The court dismissed the claims for security for support and removal from the corporation.

The respondent's credibility was significantly undermined throughout the proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for breach of an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, citing an alleged dramatic drop in the real estate market and invoking doctrines of frustration, impossibility, and force majeure.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the defendants breached the contract, but found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the quantification of damages, specifically concerning the plaintiffs' mitigation efforts and the establishment of the property's market value at the time of breach.

Following a successful application for damages arising from the wrongful termination of a commercial lease, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful tenant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 after obtaining damages and return of a security deposit totaling $49,735 following adjustment by the Court of Appeal.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the effect of a prior offer to settle.

Although the tenant’s offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 49.10, the court considered it under Rule 49.13 and found the landlord should have reasonably accepted it.

Costs were awarded partly on a substantial indemnity scale for the hearing and partially on a partial indemnity basis for the remaining work.

A commercial tenant sought damages after its landlord terminated the lease, changed the locks, and leased the premises directly to the tenant’s sub‑tenants.

The court considered whether the landlord complied with the notice requirements under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act before exercising a right of re‑entry.

The court held that the notices relied upon failed to specify breaches, provide a reasonable opportunity to remedy them, or require compensation as required by the statute.

The landlord’s re‑entry was therefore unlawful.

Damages were awarded based primarily on the tenant’s lost sublease rent for the remaining lease term and the return of the security deposit.