Anser Farooq

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for assault and assault with a weapon, seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas on the basis that they were involuntary, uninformed, and the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that his pleas were invalid or that he suffered prejudice.

The court rejected the appellant's credibility, noting he admitted to lying to the court during his plea allocution to achieve his goals.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rules 24 and 48 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action, involving a shareholder dispute, was commenced in 2015.

The defendant was noted in default in 2017, and a default judgment was issued in 2018, which was later set aside in 2019.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was largely attributable to the period when the defendant was in default and the suspension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found no intentional or contumelious delay by the plaintiff and no prejudice to the defendant.

Following the death of the children's mother, the maternal uncle applied for custody and access, alleging the father was abusive and intended to permanently relocate the children to Pakistan.

The court rejected the uncle's allegations of abuse and found the father to be a capable and loving parent.

The father was awarded sole custody.

However, recognizing the children's positive relationship with their maternal extended family and the high level of animosity between the parties, the court ordered that the uncle have access for one overnight weekend per month to prevent the relationship from being severed.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce a debt arising from an investment agreement and a subsequent guarantee agreement related to a house-flipping project.

The defendants argued the motion was premature and raised concerns about unconscionability, as the wife of the plaintiff's principal, a lawyer, had acted for all parties without advising the defendants to seek independent legal advice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the decontextualized affidavit evidence and the absence of evidence from the lawyer created a risk of substantive unfairness, meaning there was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants moved under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a consent judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud.

They alleged that the plaintiff lender had agreed to hold the consent judgment in escrow and not enforce it, and raised additional arguments concerning the validity of default interest under the Interest Act.

The court held that Rule 59.06 is limited to circumstances where fraud in obtaining the judgment is established and does not permit the court to revisit the correctness of the judgment itself.

The defendants failed to prove that any representation was made that the consent judgment would not be enforced, and the alleged oral arrangement was inconsistent with the written agreements and the parties’ conduct.

The motion was dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim arising from the alleged purchase of a machining business and sought judgment on a counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price.

The plaintiff alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, failure to transfer shares, undisclosed tax liabilities, and other equitable claims including unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

The court held that the record disclosed genuine issues for trial regarding whether the shares were ever transferred, whether misrepresentations were made, and whether the plaintiff’s claim was discoverable only after learning of the alleged misconduct in 2010.

The court also found the claim was not statute‑barred under the Limitations Act due to the discoverability principle and possible fraudulent concealment.

Summary judgment was refused and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The husband brought a motion seeking increased access to the children and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The wife sought exclusive possession of the home and interim child and spousal support based on imputed income.

The court ordered the matrimonial home sold, finding that maintaining the property was economically unsustainable regardless of the husband’s income and that the wife failed to establish a compelling reason to prevent sale.

Interim spousal and child support were ordered based on an imputed income of $60,000 for the self‑employed husband, and structured access was granted with exchanges occurring at a police station due to bail conditions arising from pending assault charges.

The parties achieved mixed success and no costs were ordered.

Following findings of civil contempt for repeated breaches of court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute, the court determined the appropriate sanction.

The applicant had wilfully breached multiple orders governing access to premises, removal of goods, and payment of heating costs.

Applying Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing contempt sanctions, the court emphasized deterrence and denunciation where there is a pattern of disregard for court authority.

Given the applicant’s persistent non‑compliance, lack of remorse, and likelihood of continued breaches, the court struck the applicant’s application for relief from forfeiture and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

Additional monetary sanctions were ordered pursuant to a prior consent order.