Amanpreet Singh Nagpal

The applicant, Amarjeet Chouhan, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 999 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found 282 days of defence-caused delay and 368 days of waived delay (explicit waiver and failure to bring a timely s. 11(b) application).

Additionally, 70 days were deducted as exceptional circumstances due to the assigned Crown's illness.

After deductions, the net delay was 279 days, which is below the 18-month ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an unsuccessful motion by the applicant purchaser for a certificate of pending litigation related to a failed real estate transaction.

The respondent seller successfully defended the motion.

The court rejected the applicant's claim of partial success regarding deposits and arguments based on force majeure events.

The respondent's Rule 49 offer to settle was deemed reasonable.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, finding the requested fees and disbursements reasonable and proportionate.

The applicant purchaser brought a motion for an order granting leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property after failing to close an agreement of purchase and sale due to lack of financing.

The respondent seller opposed, arguing the purchaser had no interest in the land.

The court applied the test for a CPL, considering whether there was a triable claim to an interest in land and equitable factors such as property uniqueness, calculability of damages, and potential harm.

The court found the purchaser's claim for specific performance was not supported, the property was not proven unique, and damages (deposits plus interest) were ascertainable.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed.

However, the court ordered that the total deposits paid by the purchaser, along with pre-judgment interest, be held back from any future sale proceeds of the property by the seller's solicitor and invested, pending resolution of the underlying dispute regarding the deposits.

This case addresses the enforceability of an "automatic renewal" clause in a mortgage that stipulated a substantially higher interest rate and a renewal fee if the loan was not repaid at maturity.

The court found the clause unenforceable, deeming it a penalty on arrears of principal in violation of section 8 of the Interest Act.

While the mortgagors' alleged lack of actual knowledge of the clause was not a basis for invalidation due to their independent legal advice, the court ruled that the mortgage was not renewed at the higher rate.

The mortgagee was, however, entitled to three months' simple interest under section 17 of the Mortgages Act, as the repayment was initiated by the mortgagors and not in response to enforcement proceedings, despite the mortgagee's prior unjustified demands frustrating refinancing efforts.

The court also allowed a reduced fee for mortgage discharge and disallowed legal fees for the mortgagee's pursuit of unjustified claims.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of his four-year-old daughter from India and an order for interim equal shared custody.

The respondent mother had unilaterally taken the child to India over a year prior and argued that returning during the COVID-19 pandemic posed a risk.

The court found the motion urgent, noting the unilateral removal was akin to abduction, and ordered the mother to return the child by December 31, 2020.

However, the court dismissed the father's request for interim equal custody, finding it incautious given the lengthy separation and the mother's allegations of abuse.