Bobby H. Sachdeva

A case management conference was held to address procedural issues in several consolidated actions.

The court scheduled a motion to clarify a previous order dismissing the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against one of the defendants.

The court also denied the plaintiff's request to examine non-parties and obtain documents prior to a Rule 21 motion to strike, noting that no evidence is admissible on such a motion.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a related action from Toronto to Newmarket and to consolidate four separate actions commenced by the self-represented plaintiff.

The actions all arose from the plaintiff's termination from his employment and involved claims of wrongful dismissal, conspiracy, and defamation.

The plaintiff consented to the transfer and partial consolidation but opposed consolidating two of the actions because one defendant had been noted in default.

The court granted the motion in its entirety, finding that the actions shared common questions of law and fact, and that consolidation would be the most cost-effective and efficient way to proceed while avoiding conflicting findings of fact.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiff, a UK national residing in Bahrain, had entered into an oral loan agreement with the defendant, who claimed to reside in Pakistan.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant was domiciled or resident in Ontario, or carried on business in Ontario.

The court found that while the defendant carried on business in Ontario, the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because there was no real and substantial connection between the loan agreement and the defendant's business activities in Ontario.

The action was stayed for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The applicants and respondents formed an incorporated partnership to acquire and develop a hotel and adjacent lands.

The applicants alleged that the respondent unilaterally altered the corporation's capital structure to give himself absolute voting control, engaged in self-dealing, and funneled corporate funds to personal accounts.

The court found the respondent's conduct constituted oppression under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

Given the complete breakdown of trust and lack of alternative remedies, the court ordered the winding up of the corporation and appointed a liquidator.