Ira G. Parghi

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action against them.

The plaintiff had loaned $50,000 to Yntegrity Sales & Marketing Inc. (YSM) via promissory note, which defaulted twice.

The plaintiff sued YSM and three other defendants (Hyung Cho, Renee Chang, and Mind Over Marketing Inc.) on various grounds including unjust enrichment, bad faith, fraudulent misrepresentation, improper diversion of funds, piercing the corporate veil, and breach of personal guarantees.

The court granted the motion in part, striking certain claims without leave to amend (bad faith and breach of personal guarantees) and others with leave to amend (unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, improper diversion, and claims against MOMI).

The court did not strike claims for punitive damages or opportunity costs damages.

The plaintiffs, who were previously found to have fraudulently over-encumbered two properties and granted sham mortgages to frustrate creditors, commenced an action against the Public Guardian and Trustee challenging the Accountant's interpretation of a prior court order regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Accountant owed money and an order for payment.

The defendant sought dismissal on the basis that the action was barred under the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and that proper notice had not been provided under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged bad faith, that the action was statute-barred, and that the required notice had not been provided.

The plaintiff, a Vice President of Acquisitions and Asset Management and Chief Compliance Officer, was terminated by the defendant after three months less one day of employment.

The plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in the employment agreement was void and unenforceable as it violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court found that the termination clause, including the probationary employment provision, was void and unenforceable because it purported to give the employer more expansive termination rights than those established in the ESA.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice upon termination and awarded three months' notice, resulting in damages of $44,644.46 for base salary, benefits, and reimbursement of professional examination fees.

The court rejected claims for bonus compensation, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision dismissing a motion for production of two documents (a Statement of Work and final report prepared by Ernst & Young) that were referenced in an affidavit filed by a non-party representative.

The underlying dispute concerned whether Ernst & Young's acquisition-related records should be produced in a broader non-party production motion.

The Associate Justice declined to compel production of the two documents, finding that doing so would be improper and would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action by creating a risk of inconsistent findings between the refusals motion and the main motion.

The appeal court upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's discretionary determination that the requests were improper, and that her consideration of fairness, proportionality, and the risk of inconsistent results was appropriate.

The court considered two competing applications between brothers who jointly owned a triplex property.

Domenic Rosso sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for the purchase of Bruno Rosso’s one-third interest in the property, while Bruno Rosso sought partition and sale of the property.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral contract due to lack of agreement on essential terms, and that even if there had been, it would have been unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and not saved by part performance.

The court granted Bruno’s application for partition and sale, and ordered an accounting.

This costs endorsement follows the court’s decision granting Ontario Heritage Trust’s application for a declaration of trespass and related relief.

The court considers the parties’ submissions on costs, including arguments about duplication of effort and offers to settle.

The Trust is awarded its requested costs of $90,000, and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation is awarded $71,000, both to be paid by Mr. Hunter.

The court applies the principles from the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, as well as appellate guidance on costs discretion.

This summary trial decision concerns a failed real estate transaction.

The court found that the defendant, Qura Tul Ain, breached a binding agreement to purchase the plaintiff Ammar Ahmad’s home.

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments and crossclaim against her real estate brokerage, finding no evidence of bad faith, concealment, or breach of fiduciary duty.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the difference in sale price, carrying costs, repairs, legal fees, and rental costs, but not for moving expenses or real estate commission.

The total damages awarded were $386,460.60.

The court considered costs following the Plaintiffs' discontinuance of their action against the Defendant Ase Deliri after a protracted procedural history.

The Defendant sought full indemnity costs, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs up to the date of a settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the Plaintiffs' conduct was not egregious enough, but granted partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, with a reduction for an unexplained disbursement.

The total costs awarded were $28,336.78.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the granting of summary judgment in favour of the Defendant Ernst & Young LLP, on the basis that the limitation period for the Plaintiffs’ action had elapsed.

The court reviews the relevant factors under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result achieved, the complexity of the issues, and the offers to settle.

The court awards costs to Ernst & Young LLP on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of its offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, ordering the Plaintiffs to pay $125,000.00 in costs.

The applicant, LAF Canada Company, sought an extension of its lease with the respondent, Woodbine Highway 7 Retail Inc., on the basis that the force majeure clause in the lease was triggered by government-mandated COVID-19 closures.

The court found the case to be on all fours with Niagara Falls Shopping Centre Inc. v. LAF Canada Company, 2023 ONCA 159, and held that the force majeure clause applied, extending the lease by 348 days.

LAF was not required to pay rent during the extension period, having already paid rent during the closure periods.

The court also awarded costs to LAF.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the action by Gloria Rajkumar and the family trust against Roger Rajkumar, and the granting of the counterclaim by Rita Rajkumar against Gloria and the Simac companies.

The court awards costs to Roger and Rita, applying the principles of partial and substantial indemnity, and addresses the reasonableness of the amounts claimed, the effect of a Rule 49 offer, and the connection between the main action and the counterclaim.

The defendant, Wolf Schroeder, requested dismissal of the plaintiff’s action under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court declined to dismiss, finding the claim was not clearly abusive or frivolous on its face and that rule 2.1 is reserved for only the clearest cases.

The court emphasized that the proper response to a potentially improper claim is through regular pleadings or summary judgment motions, not the exceptional rule 2.1 process.

The plaintiff, Kalbow Restorations Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against its franchisor, Goodbye Graffiti Inc., and related parties, alleging improper termination of their franchise agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Kalbow had committed incurable material defaults under the agreement by using unauthorized chemicals and suppliers, and had not demonstrated a strong prima facie case or a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered whether a fee dispute between Julia Belova and her former law firm, Monkhouse Law, should be stayed and referred to arbitration under the arbitration provision in their retainer agreements.

The court found that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable, and that all disputes, including those regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause and the assessment of fees, fell within its scope.

The court rejected arguments of unconscionability, statutory right to court assessment, and lack of impartiality in arbitration, and ordered the matter to arbitration.

The plaintiff, Xuan Wu, underwent a Brazilian Butt Lift at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute and subsequently developed a significant infection.

She sued Dr. Martin Jugenburg and his clinic, alleging that she did not provide informed consent because she was not made aware of the risk of infection.

The court found that informed consent was properly obtained through a series of consultations and written materials, and that the process met the legal standard.

The action was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses case management issues in two related Ontario actions brought by 2124811 Alberta Ltd. against Formtec International Inc., Enin Solutions Inc., and, in the second action, three individual defendants.

The court considers the relationship between the Ontario actions and a related Alberta action, the defendants' request to pause Ontario proceedings pending an Alberta jurisdiction application, and the plaintiff's motion to consolidate the Ontario actions.

The court orders the Ontario actions to proceed without delay, directs the parties to agree on a timetable, and encourages resolution of the consolidation motion and consideration of whether the Alberta action should continue.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an order requiring Christine Antunes to vacate a condominium unit owned by Coralia Maria Antunes, after finding their conduct contrary to the Condominium Act and the condominium's rules.

The court considers the applicant's request for full indemnity costs, the respondents' financial circumstances, and the policy rationale against routinely granting full indemnity in condominium disputes.

Ultimately, the court awards $7,500 in costs to the applicant, to be added to the unit's common expenses, finding this amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Ontario Heritage Trust sought a declaration of trespass and related relief regarding encroachments by Troy James Hunter onto land of significant cultural and spiritual importance to the Anishinaabe, co-managed with the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation.

The court found that the encroachments—including a cottage, driveway, well, and trees—constituted trespass and granted a mandatory injunction for their removal, emphasizing the unique, non-monetary value of the land and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy.

The court rejected arguments based on honest mistake, the Trust’s knowledge of the encroachments at purchase, and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, holding that the Ontario Heritage Act prevails and that the equities favoured the Trust and Nawash.

The applicants, owners of a Toronto condominium unit, sought an order for possession against the respondent, who had remained in the unit rent-free since May 2020 after the expiry of a short-term rental agreement.

The respondent claimed a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, but the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) found no tenancy existed.

The court denied the respondent’s repeated adjournment requests, found no proper appeal or stay, and held that the applicants were entitled to possession, compensation for unpaid rent, and costs.

The respondent was found to be a trespasser, not a tenant.

The court considered the allocation and quantum of costs following summary judgment in favour of Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR), where the third party, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited (CCCL), sought costs from the plaintiff, 863880 Ontario Limited.

The court found that exceptional circumstances justified ordering the plaintiff to pay CCCL’s costs, but not the full amount claimed.

The court directed a revised calculation, holding the plaintiff responsible for half of CCCL’s reasonable costs up to the discontinuance of a related third party claim, and all reasonable costs thereafter, subject to a 20% reduction and further specific deductions.