Ira G. Parghi

The court dismissed two motions brought by the defendant, Y.Y.G.M. SA (“YYGM”): a motion for summary judgment on the basis of expired limitation periods, and a motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process due to alleged multiplicity of proceedings.

The court found genuine issues requiring trial regarding the applicable limitation periods for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims, including the enforceability of Connecticut choice of law clauses and the factual circumstances of the oral and written agreements.

The court also rejected the abuse of process argument, finding no parallel proceedings against YYGM and no substantial prejudice.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the main action against Roger Rameshwar Rajkumar, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability for environmental damage to property.

The court granted the counterclaim of Rita Josomatee Rajkumar and 1526381 Ontario Inc. against Gloria Rajkumar, Superior Independent Medical Assessment Centre Ltd., and Simac Canada Inc., finding that Rita was constructively dismissed and entitled to 18 months’ notice and damages.

The decision addresses the legal standards for piercing the corporate veil, the distinction between employee and independent contractor, and the requirements for constructive dismissal and reasonable notice.

This was an endorsement on costs following a motion to strike brought by the moving parties under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although success on the underlying motion was divided, the court found that the respondent's late-in-the-day amendments and late service of materials prejudiced the moving parties and caused them to incur additional costs.

The court exercised its discretion to award costs on a partial indemnity scale to communicate that court processes and deadlines must be taken seriously.

Ultimately, the court ordered the respondent to pay $14,000.00 plus HST and disbursements to each of the two groups of moving parties.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Ernst & Young LLP, finding that the limitation period for the plaintiffs’ action had expired.

The decision reviews the contractual and statutory limitation periods, the relevant facts, and the legal standards for summary judgment, ultimately concluding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, whose license to practice law was previously revoked for professional misconduct, commenced a new action against the Law Society of Ontario and its counsel, alleging malfeasance in public office.

The court found that the action was a continuation of previously litigated issues and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious litigation, including repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already decided and naming opposing counsel as defendants.

The court also held that the defendants’ conduct was protected by absolute privilege.

This endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the granting of default judgment and summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs.

The court reviews a revised Costs Outline and orders specific costs to be paid by each Defendant, with payment due within 30 days of April 29, 2025.

The court granted an application by Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 534 for an order requiring Christine Antunes to permanently vacate her condominium unit due to ongoing disruptive behaviour, including excessive noise and harassment of residents and staff, in breach of a prior Tribunal order and the Condominium Act.

The court found that both Christine and her mother, Coralia Maria Antunes (the unit owner), had breached their obligations under the Act and the condominium’s declaration and rules.

The court rejected the respondents’ arguments regarding disability accommodation, finding no evidence of a causal link between Christine’s addiction and her conduct, and held that, in any event, the duty to accommodate had been satisfied.

Christine was ordered to vacate the unit within 120 days.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions claim by Kashif Salam against his former employer, Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network (ORION).

The court found that while a draft commission plan was never finalized or binding, the parties’ conduct and employment agreement entitled Mr. Salam to commissions of up to 15% of his base salary.

The court awarded him damages for six months’ reasonable notice, loss of benefits, and commissions, totaling $58,419.52 less statutory deductions.

The plaintiffs, Albert Carbone and Cathy Horvath, sought default and summary judgment against several defendants for misappropriating their life savings through a fraudulent investment scheme involving a non-existent cannabis business.

The court granted default judgment against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and summary judgment against Rosanna Boccia for fraud, conversion, and oppression.

Punitive damages were awarded against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. The court found the conduct to be brazen, intentional, and a marked departure from ordinary standards of behaviour, and held the defendants jointly and severally liable for the losses.

This case arose from a dispute over the enforcement of a settlement agreement where the defendants attempted to pay the settlement funds in monthly installments without the plaintiff's consent.

Following a case conference, the court previously ruled that the funds must be paid in a single installment within a reasonable time.

In this subsequent endorsement, the court addressed outstanding issues regarding the final order, including the inclusion of the settlement amount, post-judgment interest, and costs.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the full settlement amount, post-judgment interest starting from forty-five days after the settlement was reached, and costs of eight thousand dollars to the plaintiff.

This endorsement addresses the awarding of full indemnity costs to the Defendants following the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that several indicia of anti-SLAPP litigation were present, including a history of litigation against critics, a punitive purpose, and minimal damages.

The Plaintiffs did not provide costs submissions or arguments against the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs.

The court found the quantum of costs sought to be reasonable and noted that the Plaintiffs’ conduct increased litigation costs.

The Defendants were awarded $64,359.30 in costs, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiffs alleged that Maria Surovova and her company, Maria Mortgage Services Inc., engaged in a mortgage churning scheme, inducing the plaintiffs to take out a series of mortgages and transfer the proceeds to Surovova under the pretense that the funds would be applied to their mortgages.

Instead, Surovova misappropriated the funds for personal use.

The court found Surovova liable for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding the plaintiffs $1,666,059.13 in damages and $215,603.52 in costs.

The court considered a motion by several defendants to strike out claims in a civil action involving allegations of mortgage fraud, conspiracy, and related causes of action.

The moving defendants sought to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as being frivolous and vexatious.

The court granted the motion in part, striking claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against the moving defendants without leave to amend, but allowed the claim against Mr. Geraci personally to be amended.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-served motion materials and the requirements for amending pleadings in the face of a motion to strike.

The court considered a request by Canadian Tire Bank to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court declined to dismiss, finding that the pleadings, read generously, disclosed a core complaint that was not clearly frivolous or abusive.

The court emphasized that rule 2.1 is a blunt instrument reserved for the clearest of cases and is not a substitute for other procedural motions.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Coco Developments Ltd., against the defendant, Sukhwant Singh Bal, for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring trial regarding liability or damages.

The defendant failed to close the transaction, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages reflecting the difference between the original and resale prices, as well as carrying costs.

The court also awarded the plaintiff $19,000 in costs, relying on the agreement’s full indemnity provision and the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s legal costs.

The court dismissed a defamation action brought by UM Financial Inc., Omar Kalair, and Yusuf Panchbhaya against Ronald Butler and Butler Mortgage Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that a social media post by Mr. Butler defamed them by referencing a halal mortgage organization that "ripped off its clients years ago & embezzled people’s money." The court found that UM Financial lacked standing as an undischarged bankrupt, and that the impugned words did not refer to the plaintiffs specifically.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to show substantial merit to their claim, failed to show the defendants had no valid defences, and failed to demonstrate that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

This decision concerns cross-applications to set aside or enforce two arbitral decisions relating to a commercial property dispute between the Moscone Parties and Edenrock Holdings Inc. and Anthony Marrese.

The Moscone Parties sought to set aside or appeal the arbitral decisions on grounds of procedural unfairness, natural justice, and bias, or in the alternative, to remit the matter to a new arbitrator.

The court dismissed the Moscone Parties’ application, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal.

The application by Edenrock and Marrese to enforce the arbitral decisions was granted.

The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group appealed an arbitrator's decision regarding a loss transfer dispute, arguing the arbitrator erred by applying Rule 10(4) instead of Rule 6 of the Fault Determination Rules and improperly considered the circumstances of the accident contrary to Rule 3.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly applied Rule 10(4) because the accident occurred during a lane change, not as a rear-end collision.

The court also held that the arbitrator's consideration of the accident's specific facts was necessary to determine the applicable rule and did not violate Rule 3, which prohibits considering external circumstances.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) on two properties and a Mareva injunction over the proceeds of a third property sale, arising from a home renovation dispute.

The defendants failed to comply with a prior court order to produce an account reconciliation, which prejudiced the plaintiffs' ability to establish their claims.

The court dismissed the requests for CPLs and the Mareva injunction without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to renew the motion once the evidentiary record is complete.

The court granted the plaintiffs' request to amend their Statement of Claim and awarded them $5,800 in costs due to the defendants' improper conduct and non-compliance with court orders.

The parties brought competing motions under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to determine the validity of a Release signed by the mortgagor, which purported to waive her right to sue the mortgagees and her real estate agent.

The mortgagor had entered into a series of increasingly expensive private mortgages brokered by her real estate agent, who concealed that the lenders were his family members and their companies.

The court found that the real estate agent was the directing mind behind the loans and had breached his fiduciary duty.

The court held that the Release was void and unenforceable because its execution was an unconscionable transaction resulting from an inequality of bargaining power and an improvident bargain, characterized by exorbitant borrowing costs and illegal fees.