Faraaz Al-Karim Damji

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for summary judgment for over $1 million in unpaid legal fees against the corporate defendants and the individual defendant as guarantor.

The defendants sought to dismiss the motion and have the accounts referred for assessment under the Solicitors Act or the court's inherent jurisdiction, citing special circumstances.

The court found that the law firm failed to advise the clients of their right to assess the accounts and failed to render accounts every 60 days as agreed.

The court concluded that special circumstances existed, dismissed the summary judgment motion, and ordered the accounts to be referred for assessment.

Following a settlement in which allegations of fraud and deception were withdrawn, the parties jointly requested a redaction order to limit court openness.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the parties failed to establish the requirements set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, as no important public interest was identified and no submissions were provided to justify the restriction on court openness.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent an arbitrator from hearing and deciding a challenge to his own jurisdiction until the court determined the plaintiffs' cross-motion to set aside the arbitration agreement.

The plaintiffs had sold two corporations to the defendant for $40 million under a share purchase agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After the transaction closed, disputes arose regarding alleged breaches of warranties and post-closing adjustments.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced a court action and challenged the arbitrator's jurisdiction in the arbitration proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the first two prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test: there was no serious question to be tried, and no irreparable harm would result from allowing the arbitration to proceed.

The plaintiff, Liberty Tax Service, Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from violating post-termination non-compete and non-solicitation obligations under a franchise agreement, and to compel the return of client records.

The court found a strong prima facie case of competition but not of solicitation, and ordered the return of documents, but declined to grant an interlocutory injunction due to the lateness in the tax season and the potential prejudice to innocent clients.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 60.11(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary the sentences imposed on him for contempt of court, which originally totaled 18 to 21 months.

The court found that the moving party had purged his contempt regarding one order by completing an examination in aid of execution, and had made good faith efforts to pay a settlement amount, paying $472,000.

Acknowledging these changed circumstances, the court reduced the sentences for several breaches, resulting in a new global consecutive sentence of 14 months imprisonment.

The applicants sought a penalty for the respondent, who was previously found in contempt for multiple breaches of six court orders related to the disclosure of financial information for several franchise businesses.

The court found that the respondent deliberately and continuously flouted the orders to frustrate the applicants' ability to monitor the businesses, which ultimately lost all value.

The court sentenced the respondent to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling between 18 and 21 months less a day, and ordered him to pay substantial indemnity costs of $369,644.26.

The applicants brought motions for contempt against the respondents, specifically Fateh Singh Sidhu, for breaching eight court orders related to the disclosure of financial and operational information regarding several Popeye's franchises.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, and that Sidhu deliberately and willfully disobeyed them.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Sidhu was in civil contempt and adjourned the matter for a penalty hearing.

The applicants moved for leave to appeal a costs order to the Divisional Court.

The underlying order dismissed a motion to set aside a $1.2 million judgment and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the respondent, but denied the applicants' request for costs payable personally by the respondent's lawyer.

The court held that the costs order against the non-party lawyer was part of the final judgment and could not be severed.

Therefore, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals of final orders over the monetary limit lie to the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants on personal guarantees executed in connection with commercial credit facilities exceeding $3.9 million.

The defendants argued various defences including non est factum, failure to realize on security before enforcing the guarantees, unconscionability, innocent misrepresentation, and lack of independent legal advice.

The court exercised its powers under Rule 20 to weigh evidence and assess credibility and found the primary defence of non est factum unsupported, concluding the defendant guarantor was willfully blind in signing documents without inquiry.

The court also rejected arguments of agency, misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence.

The guarantees were found valid and enforceable and summary judgment was granted to the lender.