Bhupinder Nagra

The plaintiff mortgagee sought payment of a second mortgage balance, leading to a court-ordered reference to determine the outstanding amount.

The court dismissed the reference, finding that the dispute involved complex issues of law and fact, including other alleged debts and investments, which went far beyond the scope of a simple accounting reference as defined by the original order and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to expand the reference, stating that such complex matters required a full trial for proper adjudication.

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

The plaintiff tenant, ASCO Manufacturing Limited, sought a declaration of a valid lease extension for commercial premises.

The defendant landlords, P. Judge Investments Inc. and Malloch Investments LLC (Advance), asserted the lease expired on September 30, 2021, and counterclaimed for overholding rent.

Advance brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss ASCO's action and for judgment on its counterclaim.

The court found that the 2017 lease expired as per its terms on September 30, 2021, and ASCO became an overholding tenant.

The court dismissed ASCO's action, granted summary judgment to Advance for rental payments (damages to be assessed), vacated an interlocutory injunction, and ordered ASCO to surrender possession by February 28, 2024.

A claim for contribution and indemnity by Advance was dismissed without prejudice.

The mother applied for sole decision-making, primary care, child support, and a restraining order following a highly conflicted separation marked by the father's family violence, harassment, and erratic behaviour.

The father, who was self-represented, sought primary care and refused to pay child support unless granted equal parenting time or primary care.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary care, finding the father's history of abuse and inability to co-parent made joint decision-making impossible.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father, imputed his income for retroactive and ongoing child support, and issued a permanent restraining order to protect the mother and child.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a modular mobile home park.

The core issue was whether the appellants delivered a notice of fulfilment of a condition before the deadline.

The application judge found they had not, rendering the agreement null and void.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's factual findings, credibility assessment, or weighing of evidence.

The appellate court declined to re-weigh the evidence, affirming the lower court's decision.

The applicants sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a 14-acre property intended for their trucking business.

The respondent, Kulwant Singh, refused to close, claiming the applicants' $100,000 deposit was delivered late, voiding the contract.

The court found the contract binding, as the respondents waived strict compliance by delaying the provision of their lawyer's name and by accepting the deposit.

The court also found Mr. Singh's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith.

Given the property's uniqueness, the inadequacy of damages, and the respondent's behaviour, the court granted specific performance, ordering the respondents to transfer the property.

The defendants, having successfully obtained an order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), sought substantial indemnity costs of $31,122.07.

The plaintiffs argued for a much lower award.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached their obligation for full and fair disclosure of material facts on their initial ex parte motion to register the CPL.

Citing this material non-disclosure as an exceptional circumstance, the court awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs as requested, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs.

The defendants moved to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered against a property, alleging the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on their ex parte motion and did not satisfy the test for CPL registration.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts, including a share pledge and purchase agreement, and that they lacked a direct interest in the property.

The court granted the defendants' motion, discharging the CPL, emphasizing the duty of full disclosure on ex parte motions and the absence of a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land.

This action arose from a failed residential real estate transaction where the plaintiffs sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The defendants argued the contract was invalid or that damages were the appropriate remedy.

The court found a valid and binding agreement, timely waiver of conditions by the plaintiffs, and that the defendants had repudiated the contract.

Specific performance was granted, considering the property's uniqueness, the defendants' questionable ability to pay damages, and their bad faith conduct throughout the transaction.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a protracted high-conflict family law trial regarding parenting and support for their two children.

The mother alleged a history of severe family violence and coercive control, including the father gaslighting her and manipulating medical professionals into diagnosing her with bipolar disorder.

The father alleged the mother was alienating the children.

The court found the father entirely lacking in credibility, accepted the mother's evidence of abuse, and found the father had engaged in a relentless campaign of parental alienation and psychological abuse.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, with a temporary no-contact order between the father and the younger child.

The court also imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay retrospective and ongoing child support, finding the mother entitled to spousal support.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The plaintiffs, representing a faction of a non-profit religious temple, brought a motion seeking the interim appointment of a monitor to manage the temple's financial affairs due to alleged governance and financial irregularities.

The court found that the incumbent directors served on properly constituted governance boards and acted in good faith.

Although the court identified certain irregularities, such as the failure to provide audited financial statements, it concluded that these did not warrant the intrusive appointment of a monitor.

The motion was dismissed, but the court directed the temple to prepare audited financial statements, update its corporate profile, and provide refresher training on donation counting procedures.

The defendants moved to discharge a construction lien and vacate the certificate of action registered by the plaintiff, Brock Contracting, arguing that the plaintiff corporation did not contract with them or supply services, and thus lacked lien rights.

The plaintiff cross-moved to amend its statement of claim to reflect its full corporate name and add Liza Zollner as a plaintiff.

The court found that lien rights must be assigned in writing under s. 73 of the Construction Act and that the corporation, being a separate legal entity, did not possess the original lien rights.

The court also determined that the error was not a minor irregularity curable under s. 6 of the Act, as it involved the wrong entity registering the lien, not merely a misnomer.

The defendants' motion to discharge the lien was granted, while the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the statement of claim was granted by consent.

The Respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis following an eight-day trial concerning motions to vary spousal and child support obligations and for payment of arrears.

The court found the Respondent to be the substantially successful party, despite some divided success.

The court declined to award full recovery costs based on alleged bad faith or Rule 18(14) settlement offers, finding neither party's conduct met the bad faith threshold and the offers did not strictly comply with the rule.

However, the Applicant's unreasonable behaviour and unreasonable settlement offers justified an increase in the costs awarded to the Respondent.

The Applicant was ordered to pay $120,000 in costs to the Respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to stay the election of the Board of Directors of the defendant religious temple pending the adjudication of a broader motion.

The defendants challenged the plaintiffs' standing, arguing they were not members of the temple.

The court found that at least one plaintiff had standing based on uncontradicted evidence of her long-standing devotion and the denial of membership application forms.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm from the potential loss of the right to vote, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The appellants, parents of one spouse, appealed a motion judge's order granting partial summary judgment dismissing their claim for an interest in a matrimonial property.

The parents had advanced funds to their son and daughter-in-law, claiming some of those funds were used to purchase the property and that they were entitled to a beneficial interest.

The motion judge found no connection between the advances and the property purchase and concluded there was no evidence the advances constituted a loan.

The Court of Appeal found two reversible errors: a misapprehension of evidence regarding the link between the advances and the property purchase, and internal inconsistency in the motion judge's reasoning regarding the legal characterization of the advances.

The appeal was allowed and the partial summary judgment was set aside, leaving the matter for trial.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to reimburse the respondent unit owner for costs related to a plumbing blockage.

The trial judge had found the condominium failed to definitively prove the respondent's unit caused the blockage.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of proof, applying a standard of absolute proof rather than a balance of probabilities, and failing to consider key video evidence and accord deference to the condominium board.

The plaintiff, Dean Heffernan, brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself from hearing summary judgment motions in a defamation action.

Heffernan alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based on several grounds, including the judge's handling of a security for costs motion, language used in prior endorsements, repeated questioning during submissions, and the judge's experience in criminal trials involving police.

The court applied the high threshold test for reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The motion for recusal was dismissed, as the court found no substantial grounds to support a reasonable apprehension of bias from an informed, objective observer.

The parties settled a motion for the return of a financed Case Machine but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $19,167.64, while the defendant argued for costs in his favour or that each side bear its own costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the importance of the issues, the conduct of the parties, and the offers to settle.

The court found the defendant's conduct unnecessarily complicated the matter but also noted the plaintiff failed to name all relevant parties.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs fixed at $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the plaintiff's successful resistance of a motion brought by the defendant trustees regarding a temple construction project, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had previously offered to forego costs if the motion was withdrawn, which the trustees refused.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs reasonable and ordered the trustees to pay $7,182.49.