Harpreet Singh Makkar

The respondent sought specific performance of an asset purchase agreement for its restaurant.

At the hearing, the application judge denied specific performance but awarded restitution for unjust enrichment, despite the claim not being pleaded in the Notice of Application.

The application judge had also indicated during the hearing that he would not entertain the unpleaded restitution claim, leading the appellant to make no submissions on the issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment, finding that the application judge's conduct denied the appellant procedural fairness and the right to know the case it had to meet.

The parties separated after a common law relationship.

The father sought primary residence, decision-making responsibility, child support, and occupation rent for the home he solely owned but where the mother continued to reside.

The mother claimed a constructive trust over the home, alleging she contributed to the mortgage.

The court granted the father primary residence and decision-making for the younger child, ordered the mother to pay child support, and dismissed the mother's constructive trust claim due to lack of evidence of unjust enrichment.

The court also ordered the mother to vacate the home and pay $56,848 in occupation rent for her extended stay.

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.

The applicants sought an order directing the substituted buyer to transfer title of a pre-construction property to them.

The respondent had assigned his Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the applicants but failed to seek the builder's consent or pay the required fees.

Instead, as the property value rose, the respondent amended the agreement to substitute his realtor's wife as the buyer.

The court found that the respondent breached his duty of good faith by failing to take reasonable steps to complete the assignment.

The court ordered the substituted buyer, who held title in trust, to transfer the property to the applicants upon payment of the originally agreed purchase price.

The respondent father brought a motion for the immediate pre-trial sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant mother opposed the sale and sought an order for the father to cooperate in renewing the mortgage, arguing that their 19-year-old child with autism and intellectual disabilities required the stability of the home and its proximity to specialized school programs.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that a pre-trial sale would irreparably prejudice the mother's claim for exclusive possession at trial and negatively impact the vulnerable child.

The court granted the mother's request, ordering the father to cooperate in refinancing the matrimonial home.

On appeal from a Superior Court order granting relief under section 135 of the Condominium Act, the Court of Appeal considered whether the application judge erred in granting discretionary relief based on facts that changed after the hearing.

The respondent had sought relief based on a pending sale of two condominium units for the purpose of operating an Indian and Mughlai restaurant.

Fresh evidence disclosed that the sale did not proceed and the units were subsequently leased to other tenants.

The Court of Appeal found that the equitable relief granted would provide no practical benefit and set aside portions of the order.

The Court also addressed issues regarding the production of records showing exclusive business uses and the assessment of damages.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment award granted to the respondents for breach of a residential real estate purchase agreement.

The motion judge awarded damages of $122,221.33, comprising $75,000 in lost property value and $47,221.33 in consequential damages including financing and carrying costs, less the appellant's $35,000 deposit.

The appellant challenged only the damages award, seeking a reduction of approximately $50,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the damages award and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding mitigation, adverse inference, and foreseeability of consequential damages.

2214416 Ontario Inc. (221), a unit owner in a commercial condominium plaza, sought to sell its units for the operation of an Indian restaurant, an exclusive business use under the condominium's Declaration.

The condominium corporation (PSCC 937) refused permission, citing existing exclusive uses by other unit owners. 221 alleged that PSCC 937 failed to produce records of exclusive uses and acted oppressively by denying its request and by relying on a Declaration article that purported to absolve the corporation of enforcement duties.

The court found that the dispute primarily concerned compliance with the Condominium Act, thus granting jurisdiction.

It declared Article 2.01(i) of the Declaration inconsistent with the Act and therefore amended.

The court further found PSCC 937's refusal to produce records and permit the proposed business use to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to 221, ordering PSCC 937 to produce the records and permit the exclusive business use.

Damages for the breach of the Act were adjourned for assessment.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a unit owner, alleging breaches of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules arising from an alleged assault during a board election.

The respondent unit owner raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute concerned the corporation's rules and required mediation or arbitration under s. 134(2) of the Act.

The court found the application was essentially a dispute over the board election and not about conduct likely to cause injury under the Act.

The court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory mediation and arbitration preconditions.

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.