Hashim Syed

The plaintiff's action for breach of a research agreement was dismissed at trial, and the defendant university's counterclaim was allowed.

The defendant sought its costs of the proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing that the plaintiff made unfounded allegations of fraud and deceit against the university and its personnel.

The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's principal directed the litigation and used the court process to advance baseless and egregious allegations, constituting an abuse of process.

The court awarded the defendant $640,589.62 in substantial indemnity costs and held the plaintiff's principal personally liable for $150,000 of that amount as a non-party.

The plaintiff, Sunsource Grids Inc., brought an action against the University of Windsor for $40 million in damages, alleging breach of a research agreement, misrepresentation, and intentional interference with economic relations regarding the development of a solar PV switch technology.

The University counterclaimed for breach of contract due to the plaintiff's failure to provide required in-kind contributions.

Following a 50-day trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that the University did not breach the agreement or act in bad faith.

The court held that the plaintiff's failure to supply necessary components was a condition precedent that excused the University's inability to deliver a hardware prototype.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claimed damages for loss of future profits were too remote, excluded by the contract's consequential damages clause, and based on a technology that was not commercially viable.

The University's counterclaim was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $21,800 for its breach of contract.

Vidhya Ramdas appealed two permanent injunction orders issued against her for undertaking unauthorized work on her property within a regulated wetland.

She argued the application judge erred by denying an adjournment and by not requiring the matter to proceed to trial due to contested facts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the adjournment refusal given the overwhelming evidence that Ramdas proceeded with excavations without the requisite permits.

The court also provided observations on the duties of judges and counsel when dealing with self-represented litigants, noting that opposing counsel were remiss in not fully informing the application judge about the interim injunction and served materials.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion for partial summary judgment brought by the defendants and a dismissed cross-motion brought by the plaintiff.

The court found the defendants were wholly unsuccessful on their motion, entitling the plaintiff to costs.

The plaintiff was awarded $38,000 on a partial indemnity basis, all-inclusive, payable within 30 days, after considering the reasonableness of the plaintiff's counsel's hourly rates and the nature and complexity of the issues.

The plaintiff rented his high-performance vehicle to the defendant for a weekend.

The vehicle suffered catastrophic engine failure while in the defendant's possession.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, alleging the defendant over-revved the engine and drove beyond legal limits, evidenced by a depleted methanol tank.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement to use utmost care and return the vehicle in substantially the same condition.

The plaintiff was awarded $53,535.30 in damages for the engine replacement.

Claims for punitive damages, the defendant's counterclaim for the rental fee, and a third-party claim were dismissed.

The respondents sought costs after the applicants abandoned the remaining nuisance claim in a neighbour dispute.

The court had previously ruled in favour of the respondents on an adverse possession issue, which the applicants unsuccessfully appealed.

The applicants abandoned the nuisance claim for economic reasons and argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court declined to award costs to the respondents, finding that the applicants' claims were not frivolous and that a costs award would only aggravate the ongoing dispute between the neighbours.

The Plaintiff, Enercare Inc., brought a motion to strike portions of the Defendant's (Energy Canada Home Services Inc.) Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (SDC).

The motion sought to strike allegations of anticompetitive conduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The court struck the allegations of anticompetitive conduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, granting leave to amend.

The claim for negligent misrepresentation was struck without leave to amend, as the court found no reasonable chance of success, particularly regarding a duty of care between competitors.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.

The applicant, a British Virgin Islands shell company, sought to recover assigned assets from the respondent.

Following a prior order by Justice Dunphy for the applicant to post $25,000 security for costs, the respondent moved to dismiss the application due to non-compliance.

The applicant cross-moved to vary the security amount to $8,000, claiming inability to post the original sum.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to vary, finding insufficient evidence of inability to pay and a lack of due diligence in assessing financial capacity.

The court granted the respondent's motion, dismissing the application, emphasizing that the applicant's litigation risk outweighed the prejudice of dismissal, especially given the corporate nature of the parties and the token amount proposed.

No order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff contractor sued for unpaid extras on a home renovation project, while the defendant homeowners counterclaimed for deficient and incomplete work, and alleged unfair practices under the Consumer Protection Act.

The court granted the defendants leave to amend their counterclaim to increase the amount and rely on the CPA.

The court found that most of the plaintiff's claimed extras were not part of the original contract and, despite the lack of written agreements as required by the CPA, it would be inequitable for the defendants to benefit without payment, applying s. 93(2) of the CPA.

The court also found some deficiencies in the plaintiff's work and awarded damages to the defendants, but dismissed their claims of unfair practices under the CPA and their personal claim against the contractor's principal.

Damages were set off, resulting in a net judgment for the plaintiff.

The applicants brought an application for a declaration regarding the boundary between their property and the respondents' property, alleging trespass, negligent misrepresentation, and nuisance.

The court dismissed the trespass claim, finding the respondents had established a crystallized claim for adverse possession of a narrow strip of land up to an old fence line prior to the properties' conversion to the Land Titles system.

The negligent misrepresentation claim was dismissed as improperly pleaded and unproved.

The nuisance claim regarding water run-off was converted to an action and directed to a summary trial.