Bobby Harinder Sachdeva

Following a motion to vary dismissed in a prior decision, the applicants sought enhanced costs based on the respondents' alleged misconduct, including apparent AI hallucinations in counsel's reply factum.

The court identified seven paragraphs containing fabricated quotations attributed to real cases with correct neutral citations.

Counsel denied using AI and attributed the errors to carelessness and misreading.

The court expressed inability to reconcile the explanation with the nature of the errors and referred the matter to the Law Society of Ontario for investigation.

The costs of the motion to vary were resolved by consent on a substantial indemnity basis.

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 bankrupt, a former real estate developer, sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee, the Canada Revenue Agency, and several creditors, who argued that the bankrupt's assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar for reasons he could be held responsible for, and that he failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in an asset protection strategy, incurred significant personal liabilities without the means to pay them, and failed to disclose his true post-bankruptcy lifestyle and use of a corporate credit card.

The court declined to refuse the discharge entirely but imposed a substantial conditional order requiring the bankrupt to pay $960,000 and fulfill various outstanding duties.

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 moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

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.

Following a successful motion to approve a proposal to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Proposal Trustee and the debtor sought costs against the sole opposing creditor.

The opposing creditor argued that costs should not be awarded against creditors in insolvency proceedings on policy grounds.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the creditor was not relieved from paying costs after unsuccessfully opposing the motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,000 to the Proposal Trustee and $20,226.44 to the debtor.

The moving party, having successfully obtained an order declaring that no secured indebtedness was owing by the debtor to a related company, sought costs of the motion.

The moving party sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing it undertook actions that benefited all creditors.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale at $89,339.63, payable jointly and severally by the debtor and the related company, as both had actively opposed the motion.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion for court approval of the debtor company's amended proposal to creditors under s. 58 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

An opposing creditor argued the proposal should be rejected under s. 59(3) because the debtor failed to perform its statutory duties by initially omitting the creditor's claim and a related party's secured debt from its statement of affairs.

The court found the debtor had failed in its duties but exercised its discretion to approve the proposal, noting the debtor provided reasonable security for the payments, the proposal offered a better return than bankruptcy, and it was supported by the vast majority of creditors.

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 bankrupt brought a motion to compel a lawyer representing certain creditors to answer questions refused during a cross-examination on his affidavit.

The bankrupt alleged that the lawyer and his client obtained confidential information about the bankrupt's assets through unauthorized access to his email.

The lawyer refused to disclose the identity of his client or the client's source, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the identity of the client and the communications were presumptively privileged, the privilege had not been waived, and compelling the answers would violate the fairness and proportionality principles, especially given the bankrupt's failure to disclose an exculpatory expert report.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion for advice and directions, seeking an order to not undertake the adjudication of a proof of claim filed by Moroccanoil and a cross-motion by the insolvent Company, and instead lift the stay of proceedings to allow the claims to be determined in ongoing U.S. litigation.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that section 135(1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act unambiguously requires the Proposal Trustee to determine and value the claim, and the Court's inherent jurisdiction does not extend to displacing this mandatory statutory process.

In a bankruptcy proposal proceeding, a creditor (Moroccanoil) moved for an order declaring that no secured indebtedness was owing by the debtor (CHL) to a related company (BEI) and prohibiting a credit bid based on that debt.

The court found that the alleged debt, which consisted of management fees agreed to in 2019 for services rendered in previous years, was based entirely on past consideration.

Applying the rule that past consideration is not good consideration, the court held the agreement unenforceable and granted the order prohibiting the credit bid.

The applicant brought a consent motion to transfer a commercial lease application from Brampton to Toronto to be heard with a companion application.

The sole reason for the requested transfer was to secure an earlier hearing date, as the parties were dissatisfied with the dates available in Brampton.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the desire for an earlier hearing date does not justify transferring a proceeding to a jurisdiction with no connection to the matter, as doing so would inappropriately use other regions to arbitrage court schedules.

The plaintiff Receiver sued the defendant purchaser for damages after the purchaser failed to close a $12.2 million agreement of purchase and sale for a luxury residential property.

The purchaser argued he was entitled to terminate the agreement and receive his deposit back because the property suffered substantial water and mould damage prior to closing, and that the Receiver anticipatorily breached the agreement by refusing to extend the closing date.

The court found that the damage was not substantial, the Receiver did not repudiate the agreement, and the purchaser breached the contract by failing to close.

The Receiver was awarded over $5.3 million in damages, including the deficiency in the resale price, auction fees, and holding costs.