Amandeep S. Dhillon

The appellant appealed from an uncontested family law trial judgment ordering him to pay equalization of net family property, a lump sum spousal support payment, and costs.

The appellant's application had been struck prior to trial for repeated failure to make financial disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's equalization calculations or in the imputation of $200,000 annual income to the appellant for spousal support purposes, both of which were based solely on the respondent's evidence.

The court also found the trial judge's reasons were sufficient given the absence of competing evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $25,000 to the respondent.

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.

The appellants appealed an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The suspension was based on a shortfall of over $341,000 in the brokerage's trust account.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a prima facie case of the shortfall and that the appellants failed to provide an explanation or rectify it.

The Tribunal concluded that extending the immediate suspension order pending the full hearing was necessary in the public interest to protect consumer funds.

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 endorsement addresses a costs dispute following the settlement of a motion brought by Dufferin Wind Power Inc. (DWP) to compel examinations in aid of execution and amend writs.

The Debtors (Farshad and Fari Davoodian) had failed to attend two scheduled examinations.

Despite the motion being settled on all other issues, the Master found exceptional circumstances to award costs, primarily due to the Debtors' conduct which unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

DWP sought $8,588.47, and the Debtors sought $6,072.34.

The Master awarded DWP $4,000 in costs, payable by the Debtors.

The moving party sought to set aside an order requiring it to post $100,000 each in security for costs for the responding parties on an appeal.

The motion judge had found the appeal had a low prospect of success and the moving party failed to prove it lacked access to funds despite apparent impecuniosity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's discretionary order and refusing to admit fresh evidence that was available at the time of the original motion.

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 plaintiff corporation, facing severe financial difficulties and mortgage default, sold a 75-acre property to the defendant developer in a 'no cash' deal, taking back mortgages on two other properties owned by the developer.

The plaintiff subsequently defaulted on loans secured by those mortgages and lost the properties.

The plaintiff sued the developer for fraud, conspiracy, and misrepresentation, alleging the developer inflated the values of the mortgaged properties.

The plaintiff also sued its real estate lawyer for professional negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed all claims, finding no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, and concluding that the lawyer met the standard of care given the plaintiff's dire financial situation and complete lack of bargaining power.

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 appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence consisting of expert reports suggesting a key document in the litigation was forged.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, noting that while the appellants failed to exercise due diligence by not raising the issue before the motion judge, the interests of justice required a trial to resolve the real concerns about the bona fides of the respondent's claim.

The appeal was allowed and the default judgment set aside.

On a motion by counsel of record to be removed shortly before trial in a long-standing medical negligence action, the court held that an objective loss of client confidence and a dispute over the retainer constituted justifiable cause for withdrawal under Rule 2.09 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court continued the sealing order over affidavits containing solicitor-client privileged material.

Because all parties acknowledged the action could not proceed to trial without replacement counsel, the trial was adjourned on strict terms, including a peremptory late-autumn trial date and no further expert reports or examinations.