Guillermo Schible

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a declaration that the defendant Gurmeet Singh was in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders regarding asset disclosure and financial information.

The court had previously found Mr. Singh in contempt.

In the penalty phase, which Mr. Singh failed to attend, the court ordered his defence struck and sentenced him to seven days incarceration in a provincial reformatory.

The court also awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to retain in trust the sale proceeds of real estate properties sold under power of sale by non-parties Surendra Walia and MGP Capital Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that the mortgages held by Walia and MGP were not legitimate and were part of a scheme by the defendant Gurmeet Singh to defraud creditors.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim that the mortgages were illegitimate.

The court affirmed that Mareva injunctions do not create proprietary interests and that secured creditors take priority over unsecured creditors.

Walia was permitted to disburse the sale proceeds in the usual course, while previously held funds ($400,000) remained in trust pending further order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a declaration of contempt against the defendant Gurmeet Singh for his persistent failure to comply with a Mareva injunction and subsequent court orders.

These orders required Singh to provide a sworn statement of his worldwide assets, a complete accounting of funds from lawsuits and insurance claims, disposal of properties, a list of debts, and documentation regarding the validity of certain mortgages.

Despite multiple opportunities and explanations from the court, Singh provided non-responsive or unsworn statements, failed to provide supporting documentation, and did not attend the contempt motion.

The court found Singh in contempt, satisfying the three elements (clear order, knowledge, intentional breach) beyond a reasonable doubt, and scheduled a penalty phase to determine the appropriate sentence.

The self-represented moving parties sought an extension of time to file their notice of appeal from orders dated July 6, 2023, and September 7, 2023, concerning a dispute over property partition and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no timely intention to appeal, inordinate and inadequately explained delay, and a lack of discernible merit, particularly regarding jurisdictional issues as appeals from Partition Act orders lie with the Divisional Court, and appeals from associate judges' orders lie with the Superior Court or Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The court also found no error in the lower court's partition and sale order or the associate judge's case management role, and noted significant prejudice to the responding party due to delay.

The applicant sought an order for partition and sale of four co-owned properties with the respondents (her daughter and the daughter's life partner) due to an irreconcilably deteriorated relationship.

The court granted the application for partition and sale, finding no reason to exercise its narrow discretion to refuse.

Given the animosity between the parties, the court ordered a neutrally conducted judicial sale of the properties under Rule 55.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, referring the matter to an Associate Judge to oversee the sale process and determine the disbursement of proceeds for each property.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike out portions of the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff's claim alleged breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith contractual performance following the termination of his exclusive service contract.

The defendant argued that certain paragraphs were scandalous, irrelevant, or pleaded evidence rather than material facts.

The court granted the motion in part, striking out allegations relating to the defendant's treatment of other contractors and the termination of another employee, finding them irrelevant and prejudicial to the fair trial of the action.

However, the court refused to strike out paragraphs pleading the precise words of conversations on the day the plaintiff was told to leave the building, finding them relevant to the allegations of malice and bad faith.

The plaintiffs, former owners of Vape Brands International Inc., sought a Mareva injunction and an injunction to restrain the spin-off of a marijuana-related business to Hystyle Brands Inc. They sued the defendants for breach of a share purchase agreement and oppression, alleging unpaid promissory notes.

The defendants counterclaimed for fraudulent inducement.

The court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief, finding that while the plaintiffs had a strong prima facie case, they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The court emphasized that the traditional criteria for interlocutory injunctions apply in oppression remedy cases, except in rare circumstances, and that the defendants also had a strong prima facie counterclaim.

A vendor brought an application arising from a real estate transaction involving multiple holdbacks secured by lawyers’ undertakings.

The dispute concerned entitlement to a construction lien holdback, a building permit holdback, and a construction work holdback following closing of the property sale.

The court held that the purchasers could not refuse release of the construction lien holdback where no liens were registered and a solicitor had given a clear undertaking.

The vendor was also granted equitable relief from forfeiture in respect of the building permit holdback, as the permit closure had been obtained and the delay in notification caused no prejudice.

The remaining construction work holdback was ordered paid into court pending resolution of related civil claims.

The applicants sought further relief in an ongoing Commercial List proceeding involving the appointment of a manager over several corporations.

A respondent argued that the court was functus officio because the earlier order appointing the manager was final, invoking cause of action estoppel.

The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that receivership or management orders are inherently ongoing and include come‑back clauses allowing parties to seek further directions.

The judge held that such orders are intended to function as a “living declaration,” and that additional relief or amendments to the application could be considered without requiring a new proceeding.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the court retained jurisdiction to hear further matters in the proceeding.

The applicants moved for the appointment of an Inspector as receiver/manager over 31 jointly owned commercial real estate corporations.

The court found significant evidence of oppressive conduct by the respondents, including the unauthorized placement of mortgages, misappropriation of funds for personal use, co-mingling of bank accounts, and failure to maintain proper books and records.

Concluding that the applicants' interests required protection and that the respondents had breached their contractual obligations, the court held it was just and convenient to appoint the receiver/manager.

Physicians sought to withdraw life support from an incapable patient while the substitute decision-maker refused consent.

The Court held, by majority, that withdrawal of life support in the circumstances constituted treatment under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, 1996 and therefore required consent under the statutory regime.

The majority concluded that disputes over refusal of consent must be addressed before the Consent and Capacity Board, which may substitute its decision if statutory best-interests criteria are not met.

Dissenting reasons would have resolved the dispute under the common law rather than the statutory board process.

The appeal was dismissed, with dissent.

The applicant sought leave under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to appeal an arbitration award enforcing Minutes of Settlement that required him to indemnify the respondents and sign mutual releases.

He argued the arbitrator erred in law by rejecting claims for rectification or partial rescission of the settlement based on alleged nondisclosure of a municipal inspection revealing illegal residential units.

The court held that the proposed grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law rather than pure questions of law, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory threshold for leave to appeal.

The court further held that the alleged damages claim was legally meritless because the inspection did not cause the failed property sale and there was no duty of disclosure in the circumstances.

Leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed.

Cross-motions arose from disputes between joint investors in multiple commercial real estate development projects.

The respondents sought a stay of the applicants’ claims in favour of arbitration based on a mediation/arbitration clause in the project agreements.

The court held that the arbitration clause was narrowly drafted and applied only to disagreements regarding management and completion of projects, not to alleged breaches of express contractual provisions.

Evidence suggested unauthorized refinancing, diversion of funds, and failure to provide required financial reporting.

The court declined to stay the action, appointed an inspector under s. 161 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act to investigate the affairs of the owner corporations, and granted injunctive relief enforcing contractual restrictions on property dealings.

The defendant moved to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment arising from a claim for non‑payment of a mortgage debt.

The court applied the established test requiring promptness, a plausible explanation for the default, and an arguable defence on the merits.

The defendant asserted that health issues prevented awareness of the statement of claim and demonstrated an arguable defence through a related action alleging misrepresentations concerning the subject property, supporting a claim of equitable setoff.

The court held that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment.

The order was set aside on the condition that the defendant pay $250,000 into court and deliver a statement of defence.

The defendants moved to remove the plaintiffs' solicitors of record, Hodder Barristers.

The defendants alleged that the plaintiffs' counsel had previously acted for a different plaintiff in related litigation against the current plaintiff, and that counsel would be required to give evidence at trial regarding alleged collusion and abuse of process.

The court found that while the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute merely by counsel acting for the plaintiffs, there was a real likelihood that counsel would be called as a witness regarding discussions he had with the plaintiff during the related litigation.

The motion to remove the solicitors of record was granted.