Allen Chao-Ho Chang

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant on a personal guarantee for chargebacks totalling $234,171.89 plus fees.

The defendant, a director and owner of a furniture retail business, had signed both a card acceptance agreement with the plaintiff for payment processing services and a personal guarantee of the business's obligations.

After the business ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiff sought to enforce the guarantee.

The defendant argued that summary judgment was inappropriate, that the contract was unconscionable, that proper demand was not made, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, finding no genuine issues requiring trial and rejecting all of the defendant's defences.

The applicant, Parvez Peerpasha Huseni Inamdar, sought to rescind an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a vacant property after discovering a restrictive covenant limiting development to a single detached house.

The court found that the covenant was a registered restrictive covenant excepted by the agreement, and that the applicant, a sophisticated purchaser, had removed due diligence conditions and assumed the risk.

The application for rescission was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Tianyu Li, brought a motion for summary judgment in an oppression action under the Ontario and Canada Business Corporations Acts, seeking $760,000 against the defendants, who were involved in the operation and sale of two supermarkets.

The court found that there were significant factual disputes, a voluminous record, and a lack of expert evidence, making the matter unsuitable for summary judgment.

The motion was dismissed and the action, along with the defendants’ counterclaim, was ordered to proceed to trial.

This costs decision follows a motion by Capitalplus Development Group Ltd. to discharge a claim for lien registered by 2698368 Ontario Inc. The court found that 269 did not have a lien and ordered the return of security posted by Capitalplus, but dismissed the remainder of the motion.

On costs, the court awarded Capitalplus $25,000 in substantial indemnity costs, to be paid jointly and severally by 269 and its principal, Yang Yu, within thirty days.

The court found Ms. Yang’s conduct in registering the lien to be reprehensible and determined that the corporate veil should be pierced to impose personal liability.

The court discounted the costs award due to Capitalplus’s partial lack of success on the motion.

The defendant, Capitalplus Development Group Ltd., brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a claim for lien registered by 2698368 Ontario Inc. on the title to 105 Angus Drive, Toronto.

The court found that 2698368 Ontario Inc. was an "owner" within the meaning of the Act, not a contractor, and therefore could not claim a lien.

The court ordered the return of posted security to Capitalplus and dismissed the remainder of the motion, but allowed 2698368 Ontario Inc. to proceed with its breach of contract claim for renovation costs.

The court determined costs for four motions previously heard in the proceeding.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the defendant Jain on a partial indemnity basis for a motion to admit further evidence, and on a substantial indemnity basis for motions regarding a Mareva injunction and Norwich order due to the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, including making and withdrawing unfounded allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff was also ordered to pay full indemnity costs to the defendant Wang for a mortgage validity motion, pursuant to the standard charge terms of the mortgage.

This action involved allegations of financial improprieties related to mortgage transactions.

Three motions were heard: a defendant's motion to challenge an ex parte Mareva order, the plaintiff's motion for a Norwich order, and a defendant's motion to determine the validity of her mortgage.

The court found the plaintiff's credibility severely compromised due to numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and deceptive conduct, including altering a diary entry and making false claims about forged signatures and language proficiency.

The Mareva order was vacated because the underlying facts had substantially changed, the defendant was suffering significant harm, and the balance of convenience favored the defendant.

The plaintiff's motion for a Norwich order was dismissed as moot.

The mortgage held by the defendant Wang was declared legal, valid, and binding, as the plaintiff failed to establish the defence of non est factum or unconscionability, and the unfulfilled conditions were for the lender's benefit.

The mortgagee was granted an order for possession and leave to issue a writ of possession.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of his refugee claim.

The RAD found the applicant had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bengaluru, India.

The applicant argued he feared persecution by the Haryana police and could be tracked via tenant verification systems or exit controls.

The Federal Court held the RAD's findings were reasonable, noting the applicant lacked a criminal record and there was insufficient evidence he would be tracked to the IFA.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of China who resided in Canada for more than 10 years, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the Officer failed to provide transparent and justifiable reasons regarding the applicant's establishment in Canada.