Anisha Bhardwaj

The appellant challenged a summary judgment determination that funds advanced by one respondent to the appellant and the other respondent were a loan rather than a gift.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge was entitled to determine the matter on an extensive paper record, despite credibility issues, and was not required to order a mini-trial or full trial.

The court found no reversible error in the motion judge’s credibility findings or no-genuine-issue analysis, and no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed, with partial indemnity costs awarded to one respondent and substantial indemnity costs awarded to the other because the appeal was entirely without merit and repeated baseless allegations of fraud and perjury.

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.

This decision concerns the fixing of costs following a successful summary judgment motion by Marian Massaar against her daughter Lauren Moneck and son-in-law Anthony Moneck.

The court found that Anthony’s unreasonable conduct and failure to provide evidence that a loan was a gift justified substantial and full indemnity costs to Marian and Lauren, respectively.

The court reviewed the relevant legal principles and awarded costs to Marian ($58,885) and Lauren ($43,000), both fixed and inclusive.

The plaintiff, Marian Massaar, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $200,000 advance made to her daughter, Lauren Moneck, and son-in-law, Anthony Moneck, for their first home purchase.

Anthony contended the funds were a gift, while Lauren affirmed they were a loan.

The court found that the funds were indeed a loan, based on Marian's consistent intention, contemporaneous documents, and evidence of regular repayments by both defendants.

The court dismissed Anthony's arguments, finding his evidence lacked credibility, and granted summary judgment in favour of Marian for the outstanding loan amount.

Lauren's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Anthony was also granted.

The plaintiffs, commercial landlords, brought a motion for default judgment against their former tenant for unpaid rent and future rent after terminating the lease due to non-payment.

The defendant had failed to defend the proceeding and was noted in default.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiffs for the full amount sought, including arrears of rent and future rent, finding that liability was established by the deemed admissions in the Statement of Claim and supporting evidence.

The court also awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the contract rate, along with partial indemnity costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which pleaded thirteen causes of action arising from an internet contract for bitcoin investment.

The court found the Statement of Claim to be based on fictionalized facts from the plaintiff's memory rather than the actual contract.

The court struck the Statement of Claim with leave to amend, but specifically struck claims against individual directors, conversion, breach of the Competition Act, and intentional infliction of mental distress without leave to amend.

The claim for breach of Colombian law was struck with leave to amend to properly plead foreign law.

The plaintiffs moved for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a 108-acre parcel of land.

The plaintiff had agreed to purchase five acres of the land from one of the co-owners for $750,000 and advanced $640,000 before the defendant purported to terminate the agreement.

The defendant argued the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and the Planning Act.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land and held that the equities favoured granting the CPL, as the property was unique and the plaintiffs had advanced 85% of the purchase price.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated August 9, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding party within 30 days.