Esmaeil Mehrabi

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and an individual guarantor for outstanding loan amounts.

The corporate borrower did not respond, and summary judgment was granted against it.

The individual guarantor opposed the motion regarding a $200,000 guarantee, raising defences of non est factum and fraud, alleging the bank's representative misrepresented the extent of the guarantees required.

The court found a genuine issue requiring trial regarding the enforceability of the $200,000 guarantee.

The court also declined to grant partial summary judgment on two other undisputed guarantees, finding the issues cannot be readily bifurcated and would not advance the action as a whole.

The plaintiffs sought to settle the terms of a formal Judgment following a successful motion to enforce a settlement agreement against the defendants.

The parties disagreed on several terms, including payment dates, the declaration of a fraudulent conveyance, the lifting of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and the exchange of mutual releases.

The court adjusted the payment dates but awarded pre-judgment interest to prevent prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court also held that the co-defendant was bound by the declaration regarding the fraudulent conveyance, as the settlement offer was made on behalf of both defendants.

The court declined to order mutual releases, noting they were unnecessary now that the settlement terms had become a judgment.

The plaintiff, Mohmmad Danesh, and the defendants by counterclaim, ReMax Crossroads Realty Inc. and Michael Bury, brought motions for summary judgment in a dispute arising from a failed condominium purchase.

The vendor, Elahe Vahed, argued that a second extension to the closing date was invalid due to fabrication and non-compliance with the Statute of Frauds.

The court found that Vahed breached the agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close on the extended date, rejecting her arguments regarding fabrication and the Statute of Frauds due to solicitor's authority and part performance.

Danesh was awarded damages for out-of-pocket expenses and the return of a deposit.

Vahed's counterclaims against Danesh, ReMax, and Bury for general and punitive damages were dismissed.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence following a trial before a judge of the Superior Court of Justice sitting without a jury.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.

The offence was alleged to have occurred in a hotel room in Ottawa.

On appeal from conviction, the appellant advanced three grounds: misapplication of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and failure to analyze the complainant's motive to fabricate; uneven scrutiny of evidence between the appellant and complainant; and failure to properly apply the W.(D.) principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal from conviction, finding the trial judge's findings of fact were open on the evidence and not contaminated by misapprehensions or uneven scrutiny.

On sentence, the appellant conceded the sentence fell within the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from sentence but set aside the victim surcharge.

Following a conviction for sexual assault, the applicant applied to reopen the case prior to sentencing to adduce fresh evidence.

The applicant alleged that the complainant had confessed to a family friend that the allegations were fabricated to secure a monetary settlement.

The court applied the Palmer/Kowall criteria and found the proposed fresh evidence lacked credibility, could have been adduced at trial with due diligence, and would not have affected the verdict.

The application to reopen the case was dismissed.