Ira G. Parghi

The plaintiffs, a lawyer and her firm, sought an interim injunction requiring the defendant to remove social media posts that had allegedly incited a campaign of online harassment and "review bombing" against them, following a dispute over the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Superior Court of Justice found a strong prima facie case of internet harassment, concluding the defendant's conduct was outrageous and intended to cause emotional upset.

The court held that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without relief and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The defendant was ordered to remove the posts pending interlocutory proceedings.

At a trial management conference, an issue arose as to whether the plaintiff's pleadings in an Indigenous land claim action sought the recovery of Crown lands or merely monetary relief for alleged breaches of duty.

The court ruled that determining this issue before trial was necessary.

Analyzing the pleadings, the court found the claim exclusively sought equitable compensation, damages, and accounting, and did not properly plead any present-day interest in or right to recover actual Crown land in the Haldimand Tract.

The plaintiffs sought up to $50 million for alleged negligent misrepresentations made by Ministry officials during the regulatory review of a proposed wind energy project requiring a Renewable Energy Approval.

The court held that the Ministry representatives owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs given their sustained, proponent-facing interactions and knowledge of the economic consequences tied to the feed-in-tariff deadline.

However, the court found that none of the four alleged misrepresentations was actionable: some statements were attributable only to government press releases or regulatory materials, while others were factually and legally correct, including statements about the six-month service standard, merits-based review, and the absence of any Indigenous veto.

The court also rejected preliminary defences based on pleading sufficiency, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and a prior release.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought to have an urgent motion timetabled and heard for an injunction to prevent the respondent association's annual general meeting from taking place.

The applicant alleged his application to stand for election to the board of directors was wrongfully denied and his membership improperly terminated.

The court dismissed the request for an urgent hearing, finding that the urgency was of the applicant's own making due to an unexplained ten-month delay in seeking relief.

The plaintiff, who was in arrears on her storage unit rental payments, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant storage company from auctioning the contents of her units.

She claimed the units contained evidence for unrelated personal injury actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the plaintiff was in breach of the rental agreement, which permitted the defendant to sell the contents upon default.

The court also found no irreparable harm, noting the plaintiff's refusal to take reasonable steps to preserve the alleged evidence, and held that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The defendant was permitted to auction the contents after 21 days.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff was awarded $682,151.18 in damages, the parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $215,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant's conduct warranted elevated costs because it maintained a legally incorrect position regarding restricted stock units contrary to binding appellate authority, only abandoning it weeks before trial, which unnecessarily increased the plaintiff's litigation costs.

The respondents requested a stay of the applicant's proceeding under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the applicant was seeking to intervene in a related mortgage enforcement action where the same issues would be resolved.

The court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 2.1 is intended for proceedings that are abusive on their face, not to stay one proceeding pending developments in another.

The court noted that any concerns about redundancy should be raised in the related action or through an ordinary motion for abuse of process or res judicata.

The plaintiff, a former client of the defendant family law firm, commenced a proceeding to have her legal fees assessed under the Solicitors Act.

The defendant moved to stay the proceeding under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on an arbitration clause in the retainer agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement was invalid due to unconscionability, citing distress at the time of signing and the potential costs of arbitration.

The court found no evidence of unequal bargaining power or an improvident bargain, noting the plaintiff had the opportunity to review the agreement and the arbitrator had discretion over costs.

The court granted the stay, ordering the dispute to be resolved via arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment in an action for wrongful dismissal.

He was terminated without cause months into a five-year fixed-term employment agreement.

The defendants failed to defend the action and did not attend the motion.

The court found the termination provisions in the employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and were therefore unenforceable.

The court granted default judgment, awarding the plaintiff unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, and the balance of the wages he would have received for the remainder of the fixed-term contract, plus costs.

Following a settlement in which allegations of fraud and deception were withdrawn, the parties jointly requested a redaction order to limit court openness.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the parties failed to establish the requirements set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, as no important public interest was identified and no submissions were provided to justify the restriction on court openness.

Following a successful application regarding an international fraud scheme, the applicants sought costs against the respondents.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $185,000 against the corporate respondent, Iberbanco, due to its ongoing willful disregard for court orders, misrepresentations to the court, unfounded allegations against the applicants, and efforts to impede the investigation.

The court declined to order costs against the individual respondents personally, as no relief had been granted against them in the main application.

The plaintiff IT consulting firm moved for summary judgment against the defendant for over $6.5 million in unpaid invoices for software development projects.

The defendant argued there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms such as scope of work and compensation.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether a valid contract existed and whether the plaintiff complied with it.

Additionally, the court granted a motion by the UK-based defendants to dismiss the action against them for lack of jurisdiction, finding no contract was made with them in Ontario and the location of the plaintiff's deprivation in an unjust enrichment claim was insufficient to ground jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a guarantee securing a $9 million commercial loan after the borrowers defaulted and the guarantors failed to pay on demand.

The defendants filed no evidence and did not attend the hearing.

Applying the Hryniak summary judgment framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the uncontested record established the guarantors' clear contractual liability for principal, interest, and enforcement costs.

Judgment was granted for $9,126,162.71, prejudgment and post-judgment interest as stipulated, and substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a motion in a partition and sale proceeding to bar the respondent from claiming expenses due to missed court-ordered deadlines, and to determine the appropriate property valuation for a buyout.

The court exercised its discretion to allow the respondent to rely on late-filed expense particulars to avoid a potential windfall, but barred any further supplementation.

On the valuation issue, the court held that the buyout must proceed based on the property's highest and best use valuation of $1.5 million, rather than its 'as is' residential value.

Substantial indemnity costs of $22,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff foreign bank's civil action for fraud and breach of contract on the basis of issue estoppel and abuse of process, arguing that Iranian criminal courts had already declined to prosecute the individual defendant for the same conduct.

In the alternative, the defendants sought a stay based on forum non conveniens or an order for security for costs.

The court dismissed the motions based on issue estoppel, abuse of process, and forum non conveniens, finding that the Iranian criminal proceedings did not finally determine civil liability and that Ontario remained an appropriate forum.

However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, ordering the plaintiff to post $175,000 as it had no assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The plaintiff law firm sued a former client for defamation, alleging he posted fake negative online reviews after failing to pay his legal fees.

At a case conference, the self-represented defendant sought various forms of relief, including leave to move to dismiss the claim, set aside a prior consent injunction order, and compel early production of evidence.

The court dismissed the requests, finding they constituted an improper collateral attack on the prior order and that the evidentiary requests should be addressed through the normal discovery process.

The applicants sought compliance with several court orders requiring the respondent bank to produce disclosure, including bank statements in native format and compliance reports.

Following two case conferences, the court found that the respondent had failed to make adequate efforts to comply and offered shifting, implausible explanations for the missing documents.

The court directed the parties to schedule a contempt motion and awarded the applicants their costs of the case conferences in the amount of $11,375.15, noting the respondent's ongoing disregard for court orders.

The applicants brought a Charter challenge alleging that the Government of Ontario's cancellation of a joint task force violated their right to freedom of association under section 2(d).

The task force had been proposed during collective bargaining between the union and the college employer council to help resolve a strike, but no collective agreement was reached and the strike was ended by back-to-work legislation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the task force was not part of any collective agreement and its cancellation did not substantially interfere with the collective bargaining process.

Following a trial where the plaintiff succeeded in claims of oppression and fraud against two defendants, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $385,353.72 against the two main defendants, finding their conduct—including a fraudulent sham purchase and willful refusal to comply with a court order—to be reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous.

A corporate co-defendant was held jointly and severally liable for 35% of those costs due to the plaintiff's success on a contract rescission claim.

Following a trial where the defendants successfully defended against the plaintiffs' claims and succeeded on their counterclaim for oppression and breach of fiduciary duty, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $650,000 based on the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiffs argued they were entitled to costs because they received more money for their shares than the defendants had offered.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the defendants were the successful parties.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the defendants had willfully and repeatedly breached prior court orders requiring them to reimburse the plaintiffs for certain expenses.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $450,000.