Gregory W. Bowden

The moving parties brought a motion to transfer part of an appeal to the Divisional Court, extend the time to perfect the appeal, and stay the trial judgment pending appeal.

The underlying dispute involved three brothers and a jointly owned residential investment property, resulting in a trial judgment that dismissed a breach of contract claim and ordered partition and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to transfer, opting to combine the appeals under section 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to avoid inconsistent results.

The court granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal and granted a stay of the partition and sale order pending appeal, finding serious issues to be tried and a risk of irreparable harm.

The court awarded costs following a summary judgment decision in favour of the plaintiff bank on three unpaid loans totalling $274,311.33 plus interest, and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff sought costs on a solicitor and own client scale based on contractual terms in the loan agreements.

The court awarded enhanced costs at $15,000, finding the plaintiff entitled to such costs based on the contractual relationship, the defendant's multiple adjournment requests, and the lack of merit in the defendant's arguments.

The court dismissed an action brought by self-represented plaintiffs under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim contained disjointed allegations of fraud, defamation, and discriminatory practices without articulating any legally recognized cause of action or providing particulars to support the claims.

The pleading included inflammatory references to serious crimes, exaggerated damage claims, and unexplained attachments.

The court found the action incapable of success and riddled with hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

This decision resolves the final outstanding issue of costs in a long-running civil action involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada, among other parties.

The court reviews the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the principles governing costs, ultimately awarding $25,000 in costs to RBC for steps taken after December 31, 2024.

The court declines to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the conduct of the applicant was problematic, it did not rise to the level required for such an award after the relevant date.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought a garnishment order against H & M Flooring Inc. to recover a judgment debt owed by Hussein El Hossaini.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that RBC failed to provide sufficient evidence of the amount, if any, owed by the garnishee to the debtor.

The court emphasized that a failure to respond to a garnishment notice does not create a presumption that the full amount claimed is owed, and that reliable evidence of the debt is required before a garnishment order can be made.

This decision fixes costs following a motion in long-running litigation involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to RBC and its counsel, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity and the applicant’s claim for costs.

The reasons review the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ultimately awarding $16,500 in costs to be paid by Mr. Mylabathula to RBC.

The court addressed two motions: one to remove counsel for the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula due to a conflict of interest and the likelihood of becoming a witness, and another to strike the counterclaim brought by the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula against RBC and its counsel, Mr. Bowden.

The court ordered the removal of counsel, Mr. Callahan, finding he would inevitably be a witness regarding Mr. Mylabathula's knowledge of costs orders.

The counterclaim by the Estate was struck without leave to amend due to limitations and the inability of an estate to pursue defamation claims.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against Mr. Bowden was struck without leave due to absolute privilege and abuse of process.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against RBC was struck with limited leave to amend, requiring proper pleading of tort elements and a connection for discrimination claims.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, moved for summary judgment to collect a liquidated debt of $361,144.04 from the defendant, Issameddin Dahalan.

The defendant disputed the interest rate, claiming it was misrepresented as fixed rather than variable.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining that the loan agreement clearly stipulated a variable interest rate tied to the prime rate.

The defendant's conduct of making payments after rate increases also suggested awareness of the variable nature.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding amount plus pre-judgment interest and costs.

The defendant, Northbridge General Insurance Corporation, brought a motion seeking leave to amend its statement of defence to withdraw an admission that it insured the loss vehicle.

The court granted the motion, applying the three-part test for withdrawing an admission.

It found that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue, the admission was inadvertent due to time constraints and incomplete investigation, and the withdrawal would not result in non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, Nissan Canada Inc., as Nissan was aware of Northbridge's denial of coverage well before the limitation period expired to sue other parties.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion seeking an order for the release of $812,000 from a Bank of Montreal (BMO) account held by Justwing Group Inc., claiming ownership of the funds.

RBC had previously obtained default judgment against Justwing and Terra Metals Inc. The funds originated from dishonoured cheques deposited by Aravind Sakthivel, which were subsequently transferred to other accounts, including the BMO account.

RBC argued it should be entitled to the funds without resorting to ordinary execution or garnishment procedures due to perceived delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that RBC failed to provide statutory or common law authority to bypass standard enforcement processes or to establish exclusive ownership of the funds, especially given the lack of evidence regarding the account's current balance or other potential claims.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court awarded the AG Defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the RBC Defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, including lengthy delays, unnecessary motions, and pursuing claims that were not maintainable after the original plaintiff's death.

The court reduced the requested amounts due to the lack of detailed dockets in the Bills of Costs.

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), as assignee of Monster Snacks Inc., moved for leave to amend the statement of claim to name itself as plaintiff and particularize allegations against the defendant.

The defendant opposed, arguing the proposed amendments pleaded new, statute-barred facts and causes of action, and did not comply with pleading rules.

The court granted an unopposed order to continue the action with RBC as plaintiff but dismissed the motion to amend.

The court found that the proposed amendments introduced fundamentally different, statute-barred claims based on new facts not originally pleaded, and that the pleading itself failed to comply with the rules of pleading, particularly regarding misrepresentation particulars.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendants, including Royal Bank of Canada, brought a motion to strike several claims (negligence, negligent investigation, defamation, breach of Charter rights, breach of statutory duty, conspiracy to breach statutory duty, interference with economic relations) and a motion for summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim.

The court dismissed all claims except malicious prosecution due to the expiration of the limitation period and failure to disclose a cause of action.

The defamation claim was also dismissed because it cannot be maintained by an estate trustee.

The court granted summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim, finding that the defendants had reasonable and probable cause to report the matter to the police and did not act with malice.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim on two grounds: failure to pay three separate cost awards and an alleged fraudulent conveyance by the plaintiff's executor.

The court found that the outstanding cost awards had been paid, and the issue of fraudulent conveyance could not be determined on a motion to strike as it required a trial.

The court also noted that the failure to pass accounts was subject to an appeal and thus could not be relied upon.

Consequently, the motion to strike was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a series of motions where the defendants (Royal Bank of Canada and others) and a non-party law firm (LD Law) were largely successful against the plaintiff.

The motions concerned a recusal application, a privilege claim regarding a property transfer from the deceased's estate, and a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and full indemnity costs to LD Law, finding the plaintiff's positions meritless and contributing to litigation delay.

The plaintiff's claim of impecuniosity was rejected due to insufficient evidence and the principle that impecuniosity should not allow parties to disregard court rules with impunity.

This endorsement details a reference hearing conducted by an Associate Justice following a motion for judicial sale of the defendant's property.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, had obtained a default judgment against the defendant for unpaid loan and credit card amounts.

The Associate Justice was tasked with inquiring into and determining specific issues as a prerequisite to a judicial sale order, including the defendant's interest in the property, binding judgments and writs of execution, priorities among creditors, reasons against sale, and distribution of proceeds.

The defendant did not appear despite proper service.

The Associate Justice made findings on all stipulated issues, confirming the defendant's joint tenancy with his spouse, the priority of a registered charge, and the pro rata distribution among execution creditors under the Creditors Relief Act.

The Associate Justice clarified that their role was to report findings to the directing judge (Justice Vella), as they did not have the jurisdiction to order the judicial sale itself.

The Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar, through its trustee, brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself from hearing a privilege motion and a motion to pass accounts.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought disclosure of the Estate Trustee's real estate lawyer's file and an order for the Estate to pass its accounts.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It granted RBC's motion, ruling that the Estate Trustee had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege over the real estate file by relying on legal advice to explain his conduct regarding the property transfer.

The court also found that RBC, as a judgment creditor, had standing under the Estates Act to compel the passing of the Estate's accounts, and ordered the accounts to be passed.

The plaintiffs, auto dealers, purchased three vehicles from the defendants and subsequently sold them to third parties in the United States.

The defendant bank held prior registered security interests under the Personal Property Security Act against the vehicles.

The plaintiffs sued the bank seeking a declaration of ownership free of liens, alleging fraud by the sellers.

The bank moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim and for judgment on its counterclaim for conversion.

The court granted the bank's motion, finding the plaintiffs had actual or constructive notice of the registered liens and intentionally committed acts inconsistent with the bank's possessory rights.

The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed, and the bank was awarded damages for conversion totaling $132,250.

The plaintiff judgment creditor brought a motion for an order for the judicial sale of the self-represented defendant judgment debtor's property under Rule 54.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, a former lawyer with experience in mortgage enforcement, consented to the motion, agreeing that a judicial sale yields a better financial outcome and provides a cleaner process than a sheriff's auction.

The court granted the motion on consent, ordering a reference for a judicial sale and fixing costs at $500.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought to set aside a property transfer from the defendant debtor to his wife as a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and Assignments and Preferences Act.

The defendants were noted in default, deeming the factual allegations of fraudulent intent admitted.

The court found the transfer suspicious due to its timing (after the plaintiff's claim was served) and the close relationship between the transferor and transferee, consistent with "badges of fraud." The court declared the conveyance null and void, restoring joint title, but declined to award additional damages due to lack of specific proof.