Amandeep S. Dhillon

The applicant, as trustee of her late husband's estate, sought enforcement of a settlement agreement reached in 2020 with the respondents regarding the purchase of her interest in family business assets and real property.

The respondents had paid the settlement amount but refused to execute the Minutes of Settlement and Release and Indemnity, claiming the release provisions would compromise their separate action against their former counsel.

The court found a binding settlement existed and that enforcement was appropriate, granting judgment in accordance with the settlement terms and ordering execution of the documents within seven days.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a judgment granting the applicant's application and dismissing the respondent's cross-application, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs generally, but the applicant's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $60,000, representing partial indemnity costs until the date of the offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The applicant mortgagor paid the principal and all interest payable under a commercial mortgage two weeks before the maturity date.

The respondent mortgagee demanded a prepayment charge of one month's interest, which the mortgagor paid under protest to obtain a discharge.

The mortgagor applied for a declaration that the charge was improper and for repayment.

The mortgagee cross-applied, arguing it was entitled to three months' interest and that the parties had reached a settlement.

The court found no settlement was reached and held that the prepayment clause was not triggered because the mortgagor paid all interest due up to the maturity date.

The court ordered the mortgagee to repay the improperly charged fees.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and other torts arising from three private text messages.

The court found that the text messages were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and were not communicated to anyone other than the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the alternative tort claims as an improper attempt to dress up a defamation claim.

Summary judgment was granted, the action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of Estates Associates Inc.'s claim against the McCowan defendants and Bryon C. Cohen.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, citing unsubstantiated fraud allegations and offers to settle.

The plaintiff, represented in person, argued the amounts were excessive.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding that while the case was complex, the allegations did not warrant substantial indemnity, and Rule 49.10(2) did not apply to award substantial indemnity to a successful defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of real property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction and did not file responding materials or appear at the motion.

The court found the agreement valid and the defendants in breach, rejecting claims of impairment at signing.

Summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded damages for loss of bargain, legal fees, inspection, and appraisal costs, totaling $111,737.03, plus post-judgment interest and costs.

This appeal concerns the assessment of damages for sexual assault in a civil action.

The respondent, a physician, alleged that the appellant, a colleague and friend, sexually assaulted her at her home in 1999.

The trial judge found the assault proven and awarded general damages of $175,000, punitive damages of $25,000, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The appellant appealed, challenging the non-pecuniary damages award and the punitive damages award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's assessment of damages or her decision to award punitive damages.

The defendant vendor brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff purchaser after a failed $55 million commercial real estate transaction.

The court found that the plaintiff made a false statement in its affidavit regarding a contractual obligation to resell the property, constituting material non-disclosure.

Applying the Dhunna factors, the court also determined that the property was purchased for investment purposes, damages could be readily calculated, and the CPL prejudiced the vendor's ability to refinance or sell.

The CPL was discharged.

The plaintiff's cross-motions for consolidation and document production were dismissed, though the actions were ordered to be heard together.

Following a successful motion for partial summary judgment, the moving party sought costs on a substantial and full indemnity basis, arguing the responding party acted unreasonably and for the purpose of delay.

The responding party denied lengthening the proceeding and argued the costs sought were disproportionate.

The court found the responding party did not act unreasonably solely for delay, but awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the moving party's offers to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $32,500 inclusive.

The plaintiff recruitment firm brought a motion for partial summary judgment for unpaid invoices relating to executive placements.

The defendant did not oppose the judgment but sought a stay of execution pending the resolution of its counterclaim against the co-plaintiff financial advisory firm.

The court granted the partial summary judgment and dismissed the request for a stay, finding that the co-plaintiffs were separate corporate entities, the underlying transactions were completely unrelated, and the equities favoured allowing the plaintiff to enforce its judgment without delay.

This is an appeal from a Master's order requiring an extra-jurisdictional examination of a plaintiff and awarding costs.

The plaintiffs appealed the order for examination and the costs award.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the Master applied the correct test for extra-jurisdictional examinations, provided sufficient reasons, and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The appeal regarding costs was dismissed because leave to appeal was not sought, with the possibility for the plaintiffs to bring a separate motion for leave.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff, a physician, sued the defendant, also a physician, for physical and sexual assault.

The defendant alleged a prior consensual sexual affair and that the plaintiff's allegations were fabricated due to hospital privilege issues.

The court found the defendant's late disclosure of the alleged affair undermined his credibility.

Based on consistent plaintiff testimony, corroborating witnesses, DNA evidence from a rug matching the defendant's DNA from a mug, and an adverse inference drawn from the defendant's refusal to provide a DNA sample, the court found the sexual assault occurred.

The court awarded $175,000 in non-pecuniary damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, finding the assault was a material contributing factor to the plaintiff's psychological injury.

Following a settlement and court-supervised election of a temple's board of directors, the newly elected board sought the court's assistance to compel the former board to turn over management.

The applicants sought costs of $1,192.50 for the case conference, while the respondents argued for $850.

The court split the difference, awarding $1,021.25 to the applicants, payable by the individual respondents.

The court also approved the unopposed fees of the court-appointed Nominations Officer and Meeting Chair.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of six properties and judgment on the covenants of five collateral mortgages.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the transaction was part of a joint venture business arrangement with the plaintiff's principal's son, rather than a conventional mortgage, and disputed that the full $1,100,000 was advanced.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial for the majority of the claims.

The court held that the mortgages were valid and that most of the funds were advanced as claimed, granting summary judgment for possession and the debt, excluding a disputed $33,000 lender's fee and certain legal accounts.