Harinder Bir Singh Dhaliwal

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion, arguing the respondent's claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 rather than the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court held the claim, as pleaded, sought recovery of an interest in land or damages in lieu of that interest and therefore fell under the 10-year limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court rejected new appellate arguments about contractual performance because those issues were not raised on the summary judgment motion.

It confirmed that an appeal from a failed summary judgment motion is not a vehicle for advancing fresh issues.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awards to both responding parties and costs to the appellant on the stay motion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether an order consolidating two actions and dismissing a summary judgment motion was final or interlocutory, and whether to stay the operation of the schedule in the motion judge’s order pending appeal.

The court found the order to be final, as it disposed of the limitation defence under the Real Property Limitations Act, and stayed the order pending appeal.

The Landlord (Applicant) sought to terminate a commercial lease, arguing that the tenant's option to renew was void for uncertainty due to missing terms regarding the exercising party, governing terms, and exercise manner.

The Tenant (Respondent) contended the option was clear and enforceable.

The court found that the issue was properly determinable by application and, applying principles of contract interpretation including a holistic reading, consideration of the factual matrix, and the contra proferentem rule, determined that the option to renew was valid and enforceable by the Tenant.

The Landlord's application was dismissed, and the Tenant was granted peaceful occupation under the renewed term.

The Applicants, maternal grandparents, brought a motion for security for costs of $30,000 against the added party, Deesho Kaur Bains, the paternal grandmother.

Deesho was seeking to set aside a final consent order that required the child, Sareen, to be returned to Ontario from India, and to assert that India was the proper jurisdiction.

The child had been residing in India with Deesho for nearly four years after her father took her there without notice.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, emphasizing that in family litigation, the best interests of the child are paramount, and security for costs should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

The court found Deesho's participation necessary and relevant to the child's best interests.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of multiple appeals.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario had previously dismissed appeals brought by the appellants and invited submissions on costs.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement on costs.

The endorsement formalizes this agreement, ordering the appellant Lina Bertasiene to pay $7,500 in costs to the Kvyetko respondents, and appellants Lina Bertasiene and Singaras Bertasius to pay $14,700 for the appeal and an additional $5,000 for a fresh evidence motion to the Ilioukevitch respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals from summary judgments enforcing multiple mortgages against the appellants.

The appellants challenged the judgments on various grounds, including allegations of criminal interest rates, invalid mortgage registration, improper crediting of payments, and mortgage fraud, including a claim of forged signatures.

The Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the mortgages were valid and enforceable, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Court also rejected a request to introduce new evidence (handwriting expert report) on appeal due to lack of diligence.

The respondent mother unilaterally removed the parties' child from Ontario to British Columbia under the guise of a visit and commenced proceedings there.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the child's return and parenting time, while the mother sought temporary permission to relocate.

The court found the mother's resort to self-help and denial of contact with the father concerning.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court ordered the child returned to Ontario to restore the pre-separation status quo pending a full hearing, granting temporary decision-making to the father and primary residence to the mother provided she returns to Ontario.

The buyers appealed a partial summary judgment declaring they breached two agreements of purchase and sale for abutting residential properties.

The buyers argued the agreements were void for contravening the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act and that the seller tendered defective closing documents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the parties intended a simultaneous conveyance that complied with the Planning Act, and the seller's tender was valid.

Although the Court criticized the use of partial summary judgment in this context, it declined to set aside the judgment as doing so would only cause further delay and expense.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his claim for unconscionability and upholding the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The appeal concerned a forfeiture clause in an agreement between a purchaser and vendor.

The Court of Appeal deferred to the motion judge's finding that there was no unconscionability based on the circumstances and relationship between the parties.

The court also found that while the damages document may have overstated the vendor's losses, the damages were significant and the forfeited amount was not out of all proportion to those damages, failing to meet the criteria established in Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc.

The respondents sought to purchase a property owned by the appellant organization and advanced $1,735,000 under a Control Agreement dated April 8, 2015.

The trial judge found the funds constituted a loan repayable regardless of whether the property purchase was completed, that interest at 12% per annum was payable, and that two individual appellants were jointly and severally liable for repayment.

The appellants appealed, arguing the loan was conditional on property acquisition, that no interest was payable, and that the individuals were not personally liable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's interpretation of the Control Agreement and finding the appellants' interpretation commercially unreasonable.

The plaintiff sought equitable relief from forfeiture of a substantial deposit on a real estate purchase agreement after defaulting on a payment.

The defendant vendor sought full forfeiture, arguing the deposit was liquidated damages.

The court applied the two-part test for relief from forfeiture, assessing whether the deposit was disproportionate to the vendor's damages and if its retention would be unconscionable.

The court found no unconscionability, noting the purchaser was a foreign buyer who agreed to a larger deposit, had legal representation, and the vendor had granted multiple indulgences.

The deposit amount was deemed commercially reasonable given the circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the vendor, allowing full forfeiture of the deposit.

The respondent father brought a motion to retroactively terminate child support effective June 1, 2012, arguing the child was no longer a child of the marriage after completing her undergraduate degree.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to strike the respondent's motion for failure to comply with previous court orders.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to strike.

The court also dismissed the father's motion for retroactive termination to 2012, finding he failed to provide effective notice and delayed seeking a variation while accumulating significant arrears.

On consent, child support was varied to end September 1, 2013.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligence regarding legal services provided in India.

The defendants sought to strike claims for punitive damages and allegations that they conducted an illegal business in Canada.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings lacked sufficient particulars to support the claims for punitive damages and the allegations of illegal business operations.

The impugned paragraphs were struck with leave to amend.

Following a 24-day family law trial regarding child custody, both parents sought costs.

The respondent father, who was awarded sole custody, sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $389,000 based on an offer to settle.

The court found the father was entitled to substantial indemnity costs but significantly reduced the quantum to approximately $107,000 due to his unreasonable behaviour which prolonged the trial.

Unusually, the court also ordered the Office of the Children's Lawyer to pay $20,000 of those costs jointly and severally, finding that the OCL's adversarial stance and failure to seek court assistance regarding the father's non-cooperation protracted the litigation.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their 13-year-old son.

The child had been living primarily with the father and paternal grandparents since separation.

A Section 30 assessment recommended shared parenting or sole custody to the mother if the father did not move away from his parents, but the court found the assessors favoured the mother.

Following a judicial interview where the child expressed a strong preference to live with his father and fear of his mother, and considering the father's ability to provide a stable environment, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The mother was granted access every other weekend, with overnight visits conditional on OCL approval of sleeping arrangements, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.

The appellant sold his print services business to the respondents, who subsequently stopped making payments on the promissory note, leaving a balance of $94,600.

The appellant brought an application for judgment, which the application judge dismissed upon finding the appellant made a fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the value of the business equipment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the evidence fell short of establishing fraudulent misrepresentation, and ordered the matter to proceed to trial due to the numerous factual disputes.

The appellant landlord wrongfully terminated a commercial lease.

The application judge awarded the respondent tenant damages based on the rent the tenant would have received from its subtenants, but failed to deduct the rent the tenant would have owed the landlord for the remainder of the lease term.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, correcting the calculation error to properly reflect expectation damages, reducing the damage award from $130,600 to $35,600.