Alnaz Ismail Jiwa

This trial involved claims for unjust enrichment between parties following the breakdown of a common law relationship that lasted from 2012 to 2017.

The applicant claimed compensation for unpaid labour provided to the respondent's wallpapering business, occupation rent for properties, and ownership disputes regarding jointly owned real property.

The respondent counterclaimed for unjust enrichment based on renovation work and mortgage contributions.

The court found the applicant entitled to $81,000 for unpaid labour to the business, the respondent entitled to $30,625.83 for half of mortgage payoff funds advanced to the applicant, and the parties to be equal 50% owners of the jointly purchased property.

No occupation rent was awarded to either party.

This appeal concerned a dispute between a mother and her daughter and son-in-law over beneficial ownership interests in two residential properties.

The trial judge found that the mother beneficially owned one property via a resulting trust and held a 35.6% interest in the second property.

The appellants argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding intentions for the first property and that there was an apprehension of bias due to the immediate oral judgment for the second.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on resulting trust and property interests, and found no reasonable apprehension of bias, though it noted the immediate oral decision was not best practice.

This appeal arose from a residential real estate development joint venture that ended in dispute over profit overpayments and retained proceeds.

The trial judge found oppression, ordered an accounting, and made findings on set-off, piercing the corporate veil, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found errors in the trial judge's premature dismissal of set-off claims, the personal liability findings against individuals (Rekha and Meena Sharma) by improperly piercing the corporate veil of non-parties or for insufficient reasons, and the finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty.

The Court also determined that the immediate payment orders for net sale proceeds, the pre-judgment interest rate, and the costs award were premature given the outstanding accounting.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside parts of the trial judgment and the entire interest and costs judgment, and directing the Associate Judge conducting the accounting to determine interest and costs after the accounting is completed.

A dispute concerning beneficial ownership of two properties.

The plaintiff sought declarations of interest in the Strathmore Property, legally titled to her daughters, and the Goodison Property, legally titled to her daughter and son-in-law.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding the plaintiff to be the sole beneficial owner of the first property, as no value was given by the legal title holders.

For the second property, the court determined the plaintiff held a 35.6% interest through a purchase money resulting trust, based on her financial contributions, rejecting the argument that the funds were a gift.

The court ordered the transfer of the first property to the plaintiff and a monetary payment representing her share of the proceeds from the sale of the second property.

The appellant challenged a trial judge's order for retroactive non-compensatory spousal support and determinations regarding the matrimonial home, including ownership, expenses, and occupancy rent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the respondent was financially dependent on the appellant, that the retroactive support was notionally rather than actually paid due to prior expense contributions, and that the presumption of joint tenancy for the matrimonial home was not rebutted.

The court emphasized deference to the trial judge's factual findings and discretionary decisions in family law matters.

The appellant, as litigation administrator of her father's estate, appealed the dismissal of an action concerning an alleged unauthorized property transfer and a personal costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the property transfer was authorized, for valuable consideration, and that the action was statute-barred.

The court also dismissed the costs appeal, affirming the personal costs award against the appellant due to her unreasonable conduct and pursuit of litigation primarily for personal benefit based on unsubstantiated fraud allegations.

This appeal concerned a failed real estate transaction where the appellant vendor sued the respondent purchasers for losses after the purchasers refused to close.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the purchasers, finding the vendor was not ready to close on the scheduled date as the house was not substantially complete, thus terminating the agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the purchasers were ready to close and did not act in bad faith by obtaining financing, and that the vendor's miscalculation of the situation was its own responsibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses interest and costs following a trial concerning a defunct joint venture.

The plaintiffs were largely successful at trial, establishing misappropriation of funds by the defendants and lifting the corporate veil.

The court awarded pre-judgment interest at 8% (non-compounded) from January 1, 2012, to November 2, 2021, with an exclusion period for plaintiff's delay.

Post-judgment interest was set at the Courts of Justice Act rates.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, reduced from the claimed amount due to some divided success and costs incurred by defendants from mid-trial document production.

The court found the defendants' conduct, including meritless allegations of dishonesty and introducing new unpleaded theories at trial, justified the substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a final order on parenting issues, including leaving access decisions to the children, due to the respondent father's persistent non-compliance with court orders for family reunification therapy.

The court reviewed the extensive history of the father's failure to cooperate with the therapist, including not signing agreements, not paying retainers, and exhibiting argumentative behavior.

Acknowledging the primary objective of the Family Law Rules and the duty to address non-compliance, the court declined to issue a final order immediately but granted the father one last opportunity to comply, ordering him to file an affidavit detailing his position on therapy and costs, with specific timelines.

The plaintiff, Ghulam Mujtaba, claimed the defendants, Mohammad Yasin and Fehra Yasin, borrowed $50,733.47 from him in 2011, which they promised to repay upon selling their home.

The defendants argued the funds were not a loan but payments towards amounts Mujtaba owed them under a separate agreement for housing and supervising his sister-in-law, Nazma, who was on bail.

The court found that Mujtaba proved the funds were a loan, separate from the agreement for Nazma's care, and that the defendants' evidence regarding their contribution to the funds and their set-off defence was not credible or properly pleaded.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount plus pre-judgment interest.

This case involved a bifurcated, high-conflict six-day trial concerning the custody and access of three children.

The applicant mother and respondent father each claimed custody, with the children having resided with the mother since separation in 2012.

The primary dispute revolved around the re-establishment of the children's relationship with the father, with the mother proposing preconditions for reunification therapy (e.g., father undertaking anger management) and the father advocating for unconditional reunification therapy, aligning with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered reunification therapy for the two younger children, rejecting the mother's preconditions and establishing a detailed framework for the therapy process, including therapist selection, shared payment, and the therapist's authority over access timelines.

The children were to continue residing with the mother, and no immediate access order was made, pending the therapist's recommendations.

The applicant sought an order for unsupervised access to his child for six hours weekly.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the child would be at risk of harm without supervision.

The court found that evidence suggested the applicant had a sexual interest in children and posed a risk of psychotic breakdown.

The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence as lacking independence and objectivity.

Supervised access was continued at two hours weekly.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes and ordered monthly support payments.