Anser Umar Farooq

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.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing an adjournment in an oppression remedy proceeding under the Business Corporations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the decision not to adjourn was an order ancillary to the OBCA proceeding and therefore appealable to the Divisional Court under s. 255 of the OBCA.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce two default judgments from a Florida court against the respondent for his role in a complex fraud scheme.

The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Florida court and raised defences of fraud and denial of natural justice.

The court found a real and substantial connection between the respondent and Florida, and rejected the defences.

However, because the respondent had a pending motion in Florida to set aside the judgments, the court recognized the judgments but stayed their enforcement in Ontario pending the outcome of the foreign motion.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for equalization of net family property and orders to set aside two separation agreements.

The motion judge had found her claim was statute-barred under s. 7(3) of the Family Law Act and refused to grant an extension of time under s. 2(8).

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in his application of the s. 2(8) test, particularly regarding apparent grounds for relief, good faith delay, and substantial prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the extension of time was granted.

Media organizations challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory publication ban on bail hearing information under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, arguing it unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provision.

The Court found that while the mandatory ban limits freedom of expression, it is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The ban's objectives of safeguarding the right to a fair trial and ensuring expeditious bail hearings are pressing and substantial.

The mandatory nature of the ban is rationally connected to these objectives, minimally impairs freedom of expression given its temporary nature and limited scope, and its salutary effects outweigh its deleterious effects.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of 'record of offences' after the respondent terminated his employment as a school bus driver.

The applicant had been charged with criminal offences, but the charges were either withdrawn or resolved by a peace bond, and he was never convicted.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Human Rights Code definition of 'record of offences' strictly requires a conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or an offence under a provincial enactment.

Because the applicant was only charged and not convicted, he did not fall within the protected ground.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims based on association and announced intention to discriminate, as the underlying ground was not met.

The application was dismissed.

The operator of a meat plant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that upheld a Director's compliance order requiring the installation of a water sampling tap at a specific location.

The operator argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly analyze his arguments and that a new environmental report constituted significant new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no error of law in the original decision and concluding that the environmental report was merely an opinion document that could have been obtained prior to the original appeal.