Ayaz Mehdi

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil proceeding to enforce an alleged intra-family loan of $105,798.75 against his brother and sister-in-law.

The sister-in-law, who was engaged in family law proceedings against the brother, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to add the plaintiff and his corporation to the family law matter, alleging the loan was fabricated to shield assets from equalization.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of credibility regarding the source of the funds and the brothers' intertwined finances.

The court also dismissed the cross-motion to add parties, instead ordering a focussed trial under the Family Law Rules to determine the validity of the loan, while staying the civil action.

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal from a May 21, 2024 trial judgment in family law proceedings.

The trial judge had found the appellant engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, psychological abuse of the child, failure to honour support obligations, and efforts to alienate the child from the respondent.

The appellant failed to comply with a stay order requiring payment of support arrears within 30 days and continued to breach court orders regarding parenting time and support payments.

The Court of Appeal found this to be one of the clearest cases justifying quashing an appeal, citing the appellant's deliberate and unwavering breach of crystal-clear orders, substantial arrears, and pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale of a jointly owned property, ordering that 50% of the proceeds be released to the applicant and that she be reimbursed for funeral and carrying costs.

The respondents' objections, including claims of loans and entitlement to a greater share, were rejected due to lack of evidence and legal standing.

The court found the applicant was entitled to her share as a 50% title owner, and the respondents' claims, if any, would be against the estate, not the applicant's share.

The defendant Mireille Jehn brought a motion seeking directions to restrain the plaintiffs from registering a caution or certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and for leave to provide 22 days' notice for refinancing instead of 30 days.

The plaintiffs cross-moved to restrain further encumbrance/refinancing and to place a CPL on the properties.

The court permitted the refinancing to proceed but restrained Mireille Jehn from drawing down funds beyond refinancing costs and $80,000 for carrying costs.

Leave was granted for the immediate 22-day notice, but future notice was extended to 60 days.

The court denied the request for a caution or CPL, finding the plaintiffs' resulting trust claim enured to the Estate, not them personally, thus they lacked a direct "interest in land."

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendant failed to close the purchase of the plaintiff's home, alleging the plaintiff misrepresented the lot frontage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the Agreement of Purchase and Sale required the purchaser to verify measurements and there was no evidence the frontage was materially significant to the defendant.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, and ordered the deposit to be credited towards the damages.

The applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure, temporary spousal support, and costs in a family law proceeding.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests for formal pension and asset valuations, finding the respondent's existing disclosure sufficient, but ordered the respondent to provide an Equifax report.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $387 per month, adopting the mid-range amount based on the parties' 2019 incomes.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and the respondent's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure.

A young person charged with sexual assault with a weapon and four counts of assault with a weapon applied to vary the terms of an undertaking entered into upon release from the police station.

The applicant sought to remove restrictions on contact with witnesses who were in the same grade, arguing such conditions prevented attendance at graduation, continuation of friendships, and participation in sports.

The Crown sought clarification of victim names, expansion of school property restrictions, and addition of a weapons prohibition.

The court granted the application in part, replacing the police undertaking with a court undertaking under section 515 of the Criminal Code that narrowed the no-contact provision to the two alleged victims only, permitted attendance at graduation with a parent, and added a weapons prohibition.