Carmen M. Baru

The applicant successfully challenged an arbitrator's preliminary ruling on jurisdiction, with the court declaring an alleged lease invalid due to a forged signature.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the court application and the jurisdiction motion before the arbitrator.

The court found that the respondents engaged in reprehensible conduct, including submitting falsified evidence, altering documents, and making bad faith allegations.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $342,230.24.

The applicant challenged an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that an arbitration clause in an alleged lease agreement was valid.

The applicant claimed his signature on the lease was forged.

The court determined that under s. 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the application was a hearing de novo.

After assessing lay and expert evidence, including handwriting and ink dating experts, the court found the respondents failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant signed the lease.

The court declared the lease and its arbitration clause invalid and set aside the arbitrator's ruling.

The applicants and respondent brought cross-motions for refusals arising from cross-examinations in an application to evict the respondent from his parents' former home.

The applicants brought the application as trustees of an alter ego trust.

The court ordered the applicants to produce the trust's deed of settlement as it was foundational to their standing, but declined to order production of the mother's will or medical records.

The respondent was ordered to produce his ODSP statements, tax returns, and available receipts to support his claim of financial dependence.