Anser Umar Farooq

The accused, a financial manager at Bank of Montreal, was charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The Crown alleged he knowingly opened numerous fraudulent accounts and issued credit cards to an individual, Mr. Baz, and his associate, Mr. Tariq, using fictitious names and addresses, resulting in a $68,000 loss to the bank.

The defence argued the accused was a victim of a scheme and merely followed common, albeit non-compliant, bank practices under pressure to meet sales targets.

The court disbelieved the accused's testimony regarding his lack of knowledge of Mr. Baz's fraudulent activities, finding his involvement to be a rational inference from the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of fraudulent IDs and BMO credit cards in Mr. Baz's possession.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges.

This addendum to a judgment dated April 1, 2016, clarifies the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home and orders for costs.

It directs the real estate lawyer to release funds from a holdback to Ms. Iqbal, representing her 50% share and an additional amount from Mr. Jamil's share.

Mr. Jamil is also ordered to pay a remaining balance and costs of $40,000 to Ms. Iqbal, payable to Legal Aid Ontario.

The defendant was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood following a RIDE program stop.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath sample evidence under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the approved screening device (ASD) demand and reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

The court found the officer had reasonable suspicion for the ASD demand based on the defendant leaving a bar and admitting to consuming alcohol.

However, the court rejected the officer's evidence that she had asked the defendant about the timing of his last drink, finding this critical fact was not reliably recalled and was not documented.

As a result, the court found the officer lacked subjective reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand, constituting a Charter breach.

Nevertheless, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was mid-range in seriousness, the impact on the defendant's Charter-protected interests was minimal given the reliability of the evidence, and there was a strong societal interest in a trial on the merits.

The defendant was convicted.

A landlord brought a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against a tenant corporation and its principal for alleged breaches of multiple court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The court considered whether the orders were clear and unequivocal, whether the respondents deliberately and wilfully disobeyed them, and whether contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found several deliberate breaches, including denying the landlord access to the premises, entering the premises contrary to a court order, removing non‑perishable items when only perishables were permitted, failing to remove perishable goods as ordered, and failing to pay heating costs required by a consent order.

The court declined to find contempt in certain instances where the evidence created reasonable doubt about deliberate breach.

The respondents were found in contempt of multiple orders and the issue of penalty and costs was adjourned.

Following a prior finding of contempt of a court order, the court addressed costs and sentencing.

The mother sought $15,033 in costs (or alternatively $10,880), while the father argued costs should not exceed $1,500 given his modest financial means.

The court applied the factors under the Family Court Rules and found the father's wilful breach of the court order constituted reprehensible conduct.

While considering the father's limited financial means and custody of the children, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 payable at $800 per month.

For sentencing, the court rejected changing custody and access orders as punishment but ordered the father to submit to family counselling with a specified therapist, with the father bearing the cost of the first five sessions and thereafter sharing costs equally with the mother.

Following an earlier ruling converting an application into an action due to material factual disputes and an incomplete evidentiary record, the court addressed costs.

The successful responding party sought substantial or full indemnity costs exceeding $37,000, arguing the proceeding had been unnecessary.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found the claimed costs excessive in light of the relatively straightforward issues and inflated hourly charges and time entries by junior counsel.

While the successful party was entitled to costs, the court reduced the requested amount significantly and declined to award any costs to the unsuccessful party.

Costs were fixed at a reduced sum payable by the unsuccessful party.

The mother brought a contempt motion against the father for wilfully breaching a court-ordered access order by blocking her access to the parties' two children on November 14 and November 16, 2012.

The father claimed he was legally justified in denying access because the older child had allegedly been traumatized after seeing the mother's boyfriend in the apartment building on November 12, 2012.

The court found the father's evidence to be unreliable and contradicted by surveillance video, witness testimony, and the child's counselling report.

The court concluded that the father had fabricated his justification and was motivated by his dislike of the mother's boyfriend and his desire to undermine the mother-child relationship.

The court found the father in contempt of the access order without legal justification.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to convert an application into an action under Rule 14.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying application sought enforcement of a loan agreement and registration of a second mortgage against property.

The moving party argued that material facts were in dispute regarding the validity of the loan agreement, alleged misrepresentations, authority of corporate signatories, and the amount of indebtedness.

The court held that the evidentiary record contained significant conflicts and was incomplete, including missing evidence from key signatories and allegations that required viva voce evidence.

Because the issues could not be properly determined on the application record alone, the court ordered the application converted into an action.

The accused was charged with theft under $5,000 arising from an incident at a Walmart store where she allegedly left the store with unpaid merchandise.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of a loss prevention officer who observed the accused placing items into her shopping cart and then leaving without paying for them.

The accused testified that she was distracted by young children and urgent medical appointments, and that unpaid items had been placed in the cart by her children or had become concealed beneath a baby car seat.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's intent to steal and dismissed the charge.

A Charter application alleging breach of section 7 rights due to lost surveillance video was also dismissed.

The court provided procedural directions for a consolidated trial involving corporate oppression claims, family law claims, and disputes over alleged ownership interests in several companies and properties.

Multiple parties proposed competing structures for the order in which the issues should be tried.

The court held that the determination of ownership interests in the companies and properties must occur first before any remedies could be considered, as premature remedies could prejudice other parties’ claims.

The court rejected a proposal to resolve one party’s oppression action in its entirety before the others and instead structured the trial into staged phases addressing ownership, family law and corporate claims, and finally remedies.

The court also imposed strict deadlines for motions, disclosure, and examinations prior to trial.

The court addressed three related proceedings involving family law claims and corporate oppression claims concerning ownership and profits of several closely held companies.

The issues included whether a former spouse retained a share interest in corporate entities following separation agreements and whether other parties were entitled to equity interests or damages relating to the same companies.

The court determined that the proceedings involved overlapping factual issues concerning share ownership, corporate value, and entitlement to profits.

To avoid inconsistent findings, duplication of evidence, and unnecessary costs, the court ordered that the three proceedings be tried together as a single consolidated trial under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Procedural directions were issued governing pleadings, motions, and scheduling of the unified trial.