Hamza Mohamadhossen

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking $1,075,000 in fees allegedly owed under a term sheet dated December 9, 2022.

The defendants resisted and brought a counter-motion for "boomerang" summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the express language of the term sheet did not entitle the plaintiff to the claimed payments.

The origination fee was payable only upon closing of the financing, which never occurred.

The commitment fee was payable only upon issuance of a letter of approval/commitment meeting the term sheet's indicative terms and conditions, which the plaintiff never provided.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' counter-motion, dismissing the action entirely.

Costs of $30,000 were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered whether a 2024 capital call made by the general partner of a real estate development limited partnership was valid under the partnership agreements and the Limited Partnerships Act.

The applicant, Dream Impact, argued the call was invalid and that it had not defaulted, or, alternatively, that any default was cured by other partners' contributions.

The court found the capital call was valid, Dream Impact defaulted by not contributing, but that after the other partners funded Dream Impact’s share and its interest was diluted, there was no continuing default.

The applicant’s put notice was found invalid.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on a preliminary jurisdictional question raised by the court itself, rather than on the substantive issues.

The court had determined that neither the application judge nor the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to decide whether a proposed payment would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.

Given these unique circumstances, where the disposition was based on a threshold jurisdictional question posed by the panel and did not determine the underlying substantive issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs below and on appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside a Superior Court declaration that a proposed payment by estate executors to a law firm, in satisfaction of a Dubai judgment, would violate s. 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code due to alleged connections between the judgment creditors and a terrorist group.

The appellate court held that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such a declaration, as it improperly interfered with prosecutorial discretion and provided no binding immunity from criminal prosecution.

The court emphasized that Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 60(1) of the Trustee Act are procedural and do not create jurisdiction for declarations on criminal legality, especially when based on disputed facts.

The plaintiff, PPI Management Inc., sought to extend a Mareva injunction against the defendant Tianrui Li, freezing a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) alleged to be proceeds of a fraudulent scheme.

Li argued the initial injunction lacked foundation, that PPI made material non-disclosures, and that her evidence explained her actions, denying knowledge or involvement in the fraud.

The court found PPI established a strong prima facie case of Li's implication through recklessness or willful blindness, and a serious risk of asset dissipation.

The court dismissed Li's arguments regarding non-disclosure and continued the Mareva injunction until the final disposition of the underlying action, with costs awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The proposed representative plaintiff in a product liability class action sought a protective order to anonymize their identity and seal sensitive personal information due to a history of sexual violence and PTSD, which led to their cannabis use and subsequent Cannabis Hypermesis Syndrome.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, applying the Sherman Estate test, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the plaintiff's well-being and dignity, no reasonable alternatives existed, and the benefits of protecting the plaintiff and encouraging other trauma survivors to access justice outweighed the minimal impact on court openness.

The applicants, executors of an estate, sought a declaration on whether paying a Dubai judgment against the deceased's former law firm would violate Canadian law.

The judgment creditor was associated with entities that had historically raised funds for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a listed terrorist entity.

The respondents, former law partners of the deceased, argued that the payment would not benefit a terrorist group and relied on expert evidence regarding anti-money laundering laws in Dubai and the BVI.

The court found that any payment towards the Dubai judgment would be contrary to section 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code, as there was a risk the funds could indirectly benefit a terrorist group.