Bobby Harinder Sachdeva

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part, finding no error in the trial decision except for the quantum of damages.

The court ordered the judgment to be amended to reduce damages by $1,310,000 to reflect deposits paid by the appellant and to correct the amount of pre- and post-judgment interest.

Costs of the appeal and trial were fixed in favour of the Receiver.

The defendant, Maria Rita Ferreira, brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and dismiss the action against her.

The CPL was granted to the plaintiffs without notice.

Maria alleged material misrepresentation by the plaintiffs regarding two mortgages and unreasonable delay in prosecuting the proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material non-disclosure or misrepresentation, and that while there was delay, it was excusable due to counsel's inadvertence and related litigation, and did not cause substantial prejudice to a fair trial.

The equities favored the plaintiffs.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiffs (over 200 individuals) alleged fraud and misappropriation of $47 million by the defendants (Moninder Khudal, his wife Ramampreet Joshi, and sons Sharanbir and Yashbir Khudal).

A Mareva injunction was granted and subsequently amended.

The defendants moved to vary the injunction to release additional funds for legal/accounting fees, vacate the injunction against the sons, and release post-injunction earnings.

The plaintiffs cross-moved to reduce living expenses to zero and amend their Statement of Claim.

The court applied the four-part Credit Valley test for varying a Mareva injunction.

The court denied the defendants' requests for additional funds for legal/accounting expenses, finding they failed to show no other assets were available and did not make full disclosure.

The court also denied vacating the injunction against the sons, noting their lack of candor regarding financial support from family.

The court reduced the defendants' monthly living expenses from $8,000 to $3,000, acknowledging the undisclosed financial support from family.

The plaintiffs' request to amend the Statement of Claim and for substituted service was granted.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, Capstack Advisory Services Inc., brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of Northern Lights Enterprise Inc. and Aalto Development Inc. due to their failure to serve an affidavit of documents.

The defendants argued the motion was premature and improper, requesting a reciprocal order for the plaintiff to provide a better affidavit of documents and a discovery timetable.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the circumstances did not warrant such a severe remedy, partly due to the plaintiff's own delays and failure to respond to alleged deficiencies in its own disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered a specific timetable for both parties to complete their discovery obligations, emphasizing the "Three C's" of cooperation, communication, and common sense.

The defendants, McCarney Group LLP et al., sought summary judgment to set aside transactions restructuring an accounting firm ("Oldco") under various insolvency and fraudulent conveyance statutes.

The plaintiffs, former partners and an affiliate of Oldco, alleged the restructuring was a transfer at undervalue designed to defeat their claims.

The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding Oldco's insolvency at the time of the restructuring and whether the assets (accounts receivable, work-in-process, and goodwill) were transferred at an undervalue.

The court emphasized that expert reports are not strictly required to establish an undervalue, and that oral testimony and cross-examination were necessary to resolve factual disputes regarding asset valuation and the existence of goodwill.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against a former co-worker, alleging conspiracy and defamation related to affidavits sworn in a prior employment proceeding.

The appellant had initially moved for default judgment, which the motion judge dismissed for lack of proof, though without explicitly dismissing the action.

The appellant then brought a "supplementary default judgment motion," prompting the respondent to cross-move for clarification.

The motion judge clarified her original intent was to dismiss the action.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's decision, deeming the appellant's supplementary motion an abuse of process, and dismissed the appeal.

Conforti Holdings Limited (CHL) and its Proposal Trustee sought leave to appeal a lower court's dismissal of their motion.

The motion requested an order advising the Proposal Trustee not to adjudicate Moroccanoil Inc.'s proof of claim and CHL's cross-claim, and to lift a stay to allow litigation to continue in New Jersey.

The motion judge denied the request, holding that s. 135(1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) required the trustee to determine the claim and that there was no jurisdiction to exempt this function.

Even if there were jurisdiction, the judge found it inappropriate as continuing New Jersey proceedings would not be materially more efficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no prima facie merit, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was unassailable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision interpreting a shareholders' agreement regarding the purchase rights of shares held jointly by a deceased shareholder and his spouse.

The appellant argued that shares held jointly with right of survivorship should not be subject to purchase options upon the shareholder's death, and that the respondent, as a non-founder, had no right to acquire founder's shares.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding that Article 2.7 of the agreement required jointly-held shares to be treated as owned by the deceased shareholder for all purposes of the agreement, including purchase options.

The court also found that when the respondent became the sole surviving shareholder, he was entitled to exercise his option to purchase all remaining shares.

The plaintiff sought indemnity from a builder corporation and several individual investors for payments made to homeowners under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The claim relied on a Tarion standard-form indemnity agreement allegedly signed by the individual defendants.

The court found the individual defendants had only signed a single signature page that had been fraudulently inserted among unrelated financing documents by another defendant, and that earlier versions of the agreement submitted to the plaintiff were forgeries.

Although the defendants were careless in signing the document, the plaintiff’s own lack of diligence in accepting altered net worth statements and failing to verify the indemnitors contributed materially to the circumstances.

Balancing the competing principles from fraud and non est factum jurisprudence, the court held the defendants were not liable under the purported indemnity agreement.

The moving creditors in a bankruptcy sought leave under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence an action relating to the administration of the bankrupt estate, and also sought leave under s. 215 of the Act to include the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and two of its employees as defendants.

The proposed claim against the regulatory authority and its employees alleged negligence in the investigation and handling of complaints about the trustee’s conduct.

The court held that all material facts supporting the negligence claim were known by June 23, 2008, when a registrar issued a decision finding misconduct by the trustee.

Accordingly, any claim against the regulatory authority defendants was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Leave to include those defendants was refused, but authorization under s. 38 to pursue claims against other defendants was granted.

Following a civil trial where the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining judgment for a loan debt, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought approximately $35,000 in costs, arguing that the plaintiffs’ litigation conduct unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiffs had engaged in inappropriate conduct, including threatening correspondence, attempts to undermine the defendant’s professional reputation, and late disclosure of documents.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the merits, the court held that their conduct justified a significant departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Partial indemnity costs of $17,000 were awarded to the defendant and ordered to be set off against the plaintiffs’ judgment.