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.

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 plaintiff, a former Senior Financial Services Representative at CIBC, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that the plaintiff repeatedly breached its Code of Conduct and policies, including failing to review overdraft reports, pulling credit bureau records without signed consent, and altering signed mortgage payout statements.

The court applied the contextual approach to just cause and found that the plaintiff's cumulative and persistent breaches of the employer's policies, despite previous warnings, struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The applicant husband, who had not been formally employed during the marriage and operated a wildlife sanctuary, sought spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and equalization.

The respondent wife sought a declaration of sole beneficial ownership of the home, occupation rent, and repayment of post-separation expenses.

The court dismissed the wife's claim for sole ownership and the husband's claim for exclusive possession, ordering the home sold.

The court awarded the husband non-compensatory spousal support retroactively for three years, but found he was intentionally underemployed thereafter.

After setting off the husband's share of post-separation expenses against the spousal support and equalization owed by the wife, the wife was ordered to pay a net amount of $5,624.

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 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 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.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's decision refusing her motion to amend her Statement of Claim to add a $100,000 claim for defamation against her former employer.

The proposed amendment alleged that the employer's report to the Ontario Securities Commission was defamatory, but failed to specify the defamatory words.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Master's conclusion that the pleading did not disclose a tenable cause of action because the specific defamatory words were not identified.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's dismissal of her claim for $50,000 against the respondent.

The trial judge had found that a $50,000 payment made by the deceased to the respondent was repayment of a 1995 loan used to purchase a home, rather than a new loan to the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact, which were reasonably drawn from conflicting evidence.