Eman Khoshbin

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent.

After failing to comply with a previous court order to pay ongoing rent and arrears, the stay of eviction was lifted.

The court granted the appellant a final extension to perfect his appeal by January 20, 2025.

When the appellant failed to file any materials by the deadline, the respondent requested a dismissal.

The court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the court's order.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had failed to pay ongoing rent and lump sum arrears as previously ordered by the court, accumulating over $50,000 in arrears.

The court found it would be an abuse of process to allow the tenant to continue living rent-free and lifted the stay of eviction.

The court also granted the tenant a final 10-day extension to perfect his appeal due to delays in obtaining hearing transcripts.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion to be removed as lawyers of record and for a charging order for legal fees and disbursements.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, citing prejudice due to an upcoming trial.

The court granted the removal order, finding an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship that outweighed the potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the request for a charging order, as counsel failed to provide evidence of the specific retainer terms or demonstrate that their work was instrumental to any recovery.

At a case management conference, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to serve expert reports because a pediatric neurologist required an MRI to finalize her opinion, and the MRI was delayed until December 2019.

The court granted the request and amended the timetable for the service of expert reports, setting new deadlines for the plaintiff's and defendants' reports.

The clients brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an assessment officer's report regarding legal fees.

They alleged numerous errors, including procedural unfairness, misapprehension of facts, and application of wrong legal principles, arguing that no fees should be awarded.

The solicitors argued for deference to the assessment officer's findings, including credibility.

The court dismissed the clients' motion, finding no basis to set aside the assessment officer's decision, which had reduced the solicitors' fees from an initial amount to a confirmed sum plus costs.

The court confirmed the assessment officer's report and awarded the solicitors additional costs.

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a motion for a further defence medical examination by a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the defendants had already received numerous psychological reports and a further examination would delay the trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's recent treatment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the psychiatric assessment, noting there was little prospect the trial would be called before the assessment could be completed.

The defendants, former lawyers of the plaintiff, brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence in a negligence action.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, and her tort claim was dismissed in 2009 due to a missed limitation period.

She then sued her former lawyers for negligence.

The defendants sought to add allegations regarding the standard of care at the time the tort claim was issued (2002) and a limitation defence against the plaintiff's current negligence claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing abuse of process, res judicata, collateral attack, and non-compensable prejudice due to the potential loss of a claim against her current lawyers.

The court granted leave for all proposed amendments, finding them legally tenable and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated non-compensable prejudice.

The court also clarified that leave to bring the motion under Rule 48.04 was not required as the defendants had not set the action down for trial.

The defendants brought a motion seeking further discovery, production of documents, and an adjournment of the trial, citing a substantial change in the plaintiff's family circumstances impacting future care costs.

The court granted leave for the motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend a further examination for discovery, limited to three hours and focused on specific questions regarding his wife.

However, the requests for a further affidavit of documents and an adjournment of the trial were dismissed.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

This motion addressed refusals arising from examinations for discovery in a personal injury action.

The plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle accidents, and the defendants sought disclosure on several matters, including a novel issue regarding Costs Liability Insurance.

The court directed the plaintiff to provide information concerning a prior assault incident and, crucially, to disclose the existence of any adverse costs indemnity or insurance coverage, deeming it relevant under Rule 30.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the resolution of personal injury disputes.