Bhupinder Nagra

The appellants appealed a judgment requiring them to pay $30,000 to the respondents, representing the balance owing under Minutes of Settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or extricable error of law in the motion judge's interpretation of the agreement.

The court further held that the appellants could not rely on their own conduct to support a claim that the contract was frustrated.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to vacate a construction lien, arguing the plaintiff registered the lien more than 45 days after the contract was abandoned.

The plaintiff argued that work had merely ceased due to financing issues and the contract was never permanently abandoned.

The court found that ongoing communications between the parties suggested the contract might not have been abandoned, and the defendants failed to provide evidence from their key representative.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the contract was abandoned.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's family law application in Ontario, arguing that a similar proceeding was already underway in British Columbia.

The parties had lived in British Columbia before separating, after which the mother moved to Ontario with their child.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction over custody under the Children's Law Reform Act, it should decline to exercise it based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The property claims were dismissed under the Family Law Act, and the custody and support claims were stayed pending the outcome of the British Columbia proceeding.

The moving parties sought a stay of an order scheduling an election for the Board of Directors of a not-for-profit corporation pending their appeal.

The moving parties, whose memberships were challenged, argued they were improperly excluded from voting.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm in the loss of the right to vote, the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the election to proceed.

The corporation had been without an election since 2003 due to protracted litigation, and the potential disenfranchisement of a small number of voters did not outweigh the need for a functioning board.

Following a successful motion reinstating the applicants as members of a religious organization, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs for the entire action dating back to an earlier request for reinstatement, relying in part on an unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court held that costs should be limited to work related to the reinstatement motion heard on August 22, 2014 and not the broader action or prior proceedings.

While the applicants were completely successful on the reinstatement issue and entitled to costs, the court found their claimed time disproportionate to the focused issue litigated.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 all inclusive, payable by the organization, and not by its officers who were not parties to the motion.

Following a motion concerning a phased access schedule for a young child, both parties sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court noted that its earlier decision reflected partial success for each side and that neither party obtained the relief they sought.

The court reiterated that cost awards are intended to partially indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate litigation conduct.

In the absence of settlement offers and given the sensitive family law context requiring judicial intervention, the court found neither party was successful.

Accordingly, no costs were awarded.

During a conference call, the court addressed the scheduling of outstanding motions in a civil proceeding involving a corporation operating a religious organization and multiple individual defendants.

On consent of the parties, the court established a timetable governing the service and filing of motion materials, responding materials, and reply materials.

The schedule also provided deadlines for any motions brought by a self-represented party and fixed a hearing date for all motions.

The decision functioned as a case management endorsement establishing procedural timelines.

Following a five‑day hybrid trial concerning governance disputes within a religious corporation, the court had previously set aside the admission of new members, the election of directors, and the appointment of officers, and imposed conditions for a court‑ordered members’ meeting under s. 297 of the Corporations Act.

The parties subsequently made competing claims for costs.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from appellate authorities on proportionality and fairness, the court assessed the degree of success and the parties’ conduct.

The judge found that both factions contributed to the corporate dysfunction that generated the litigation and unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

Concluding that neither side could properly be regarded as successful, the court declined to award costs.

Members of a Sikh temple incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act brought an action challenging the admission of 23 new members and the election of directors following a disputed board meeting and special members’ meeting.

The court found that the board meeting at which the new members were admitted had been convened using misleading notice and that opposing directors had been led to believe the meeting would not occur due to mediation efforts.

The admission of the new members was therefore conducted in bad faith and declared null and void.

Because those members participated in a subsequent members’ meeting, quorum was lacking and the election of directors and subsequent board appointments were also invalid.

The court issued extensive declaratory relief restoring the prior membership and board composition and ordered governance reforms, including a monitor, audits, training, and conditions before a court‑ordered members’ meeting could be held.

The court determined the appropriate costs award following a successful application to remove a caution registered against title to property.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the respondent misled the Land Registrar about the existence of an agreement of purchase and sale and failed to serve notice of the caution.

The court held that pre‑litigation requests for relief and the strength of the applicant’s case alone do not justify elevated costs.

However, the respondent’s misrepresentation to the Registrar and failure to provide required notice justified substantial indemnity costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant’s claimed costs of $12,536.89 were found reasonable and were awarded in full.

The applicant mortgagee brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent purchaser had no interest in land and an order directing the Land Registrar to remove a caution registered against title.

The caution was based on an agreement of purchase and sale that had been extended multiple times but ultimately collapsed when the purchaser was unable to provide a required deposit and advised that he could not complete the transaction.

The respondent argued that an oral agreement between a lender and the applicant’s lawyer further extended the closing date.

The court held that no enforceable oral extension existed, that any such agreement would be inconsistent with the written contract and barred by the parol evidence rule, and that the purchaser had anticipatorily breached the agreement.

As the respondent no longer had any interest in the land, the caution was invalid and ordered removed from title.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to appoint a monitor over the plaintiff charity's financial affairs, as well as the associated costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The court also found no error in principle in the motion judge's discretionary costs award.

The defendant sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's Small Claims Court appeal.

The defendant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,203.60, while the plaintiff argued costs should be on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the principle that full indemnity costs are only awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances.

Finding no such circumstances, the court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $3,000, to be set off against the judgment owing to the plaintiff.

The appellants, facing Canadian charges for a telemarketing fraud scheme targeting US residents, were ordered committed for extradition to the United States.

They appealed the committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order, arguing the Canadian proceedings were a sham to hold them on bail pending extradition (abuse of process) and that their surrender violated their s. 6(1) Charter mobility rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and applications, finding no air of reality to the abuse of process claim and holding that the Minister properly applied the Cotroni factors in deciding to surrender the appellants.

The appellants appealed a final order regarding their attempt to redeem a mortgage under s. 22(1) of the Mortgages Act.

The appellants had obtained an ex parte injunction and paid funds into court, but the respondent mortgagee had no notice of this and finalized a sale of the property under a power of sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the mortgagee had no notice of the payment into court, it was not precluded from finalizing the sale, which extinguished the appellants' right to redeem.