Alnaz I. Jiwa

In a bifurcated trial addressing outstanding financial issues following a 2012 separation, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support.

Both parties had significant credibility issues.

The court rejected the respondent's expert valuation of the applicant's law practice due to material information deficiencies and lack of disclosure.

Income was imputed to the respondent based on minimum wage, as he unreasonably persisted in unremunerative employment.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support arrears and a modest equalization payment, while the applicant was ordered to pay time-limited, non-compensatory spousal support.

The net result was a payment owed to the applicant, to be satisfied from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The plaintiffs and the deceased Madan Sharma were involved in a joint venture to build and sell residential homes.

Following Sharma's death, disputes arose over the winding up of the joint venture, with both sides alleging overpayment of management fees and misappropriation of funds.

The court found that the defendants misappropriated $1,586,584.83 from the sale of a joint venture property by directing the proceeds to a non-joint venture corporation, and pierced the corporate veil to hold the individual defendants personally liable.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for misappropriation but found that the plaintiff's post-2008 record keeping was sufficiently unreliable to constitute oppression, ordering a formal accounting to determine the final state of accounts.

The defendants (purchasers) brought a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff (builder/vendor) for the return of their deposit and damages following a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff had elected to affirm the Agreement of Purchase and Sale after an anticipatory repudiation by the defendants, keeping the closing date alive.

On the closing date, the defendants tendered the closing funds, but the plaintiff failed to provide a substantially completed home ready for occupancy.

The court found the plaintiff in fundamental breach of the agreement, entitling the defendants to terminate the contract.

The defendants were awarded the return of their $55,000 deposit and $25,000 in damages for the costs of borrowing the closing funds.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' franchise claims under the simplified procedure, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $145,670.

The plaintiffs argued this amount was disproportionate to the $100,000 at issue and suggested $35,000.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01(1), emphasizing proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The court fixed the defendant's partial indemnity costs at $65,000, finding the amount claimed by the defendant to be disproportionate to what was at stake in the simplified procedure action.

The plaintiffs, prospective franchisees, entered into agreements with the defendant franchisor to open two frozen yogurt stores and paid a $75,000 development fee.

After failing to secure suitable store locations within the agreed and extended timeframes, the franchisor terminated the agreements and retained the fee.

The plaintiffs sued for rescission under the Arthur Wishart Act, alleging deficient disclosure regarding lease costs and location availability, as well as common law misrepresentation and frustration of contract.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the disclosure provided was sufficient to allow an informed investment decision, no misrepresentations were made, and the failure to find a location was a foreseeable event explicitly contemplated by the contracts.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the portion of the action seeking relief regarding the transfer of land in Guyana by the deceased to the defendants.

The defendants argued lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, forum non conveniens, and improper service outside Ontario.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on the in personam exception for equitable claims, as the plaintiffs alleged undue influence.

The court declined to apply forum non conveniens, noting the parties and key connections were in Ontario or New Jersey, not Guyana.

The court also found service outside Ontario was valid under Rule 17.02(i).

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after she failed to attend the trial.

She explained her absence was due to generalized anxiety disorder, feeling overwhelmed after her lawyer removed himself from the record on the eve of trial, and a pre-trial judge's prediction that an adjournment would be denied or granted on onerous terms.

The court found her explanation reasonable, noting she moved promptly to set aside the judgment and presented an arguable defence based on an oral family agreement and part performance.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant mortgagee, seeking a refund of overpayments and punitive damages.

The defendant had previously obtained a default judgment for $46,950.19 but later demanded $82,238.28 to discharge the mortgage when the plaintiffs sold their home.

The court found that the registrar had unlawfully signed the initial default judgment for unliquidated claims.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's demand for accelerated interest and excessive fees violated section 8 of the Interest Act and the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

The court ordered the defendant to refund $40,223.85 and awarded $30,000 in punitive damages for its high-handed and unconscionable conduct.