Ira G. Parghi

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer.

The defendant's Statement of Defence had been struck in August 2022 due to the defendant's delaying tactics and misconduct.

The defendant appealed unsuccessfully and sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which was also denied.

The defendant subsequently attempted to file a factum in response to the default judgment motion.

The court initially granted default judgment in the amount of $170,415.42 plus costs and disbursements.

Upon learning that the defendant's materials had not been before the court, the judge temporarily vacated the endorsement to consider the defendant's request for leave to make submissions.

The court ultimately dismissed the defendant's request for leave and reinstated the default judgment, finding that permitting submissions would constitute an abuse of process given the defendant's extensive history of delay, misconduct, and unsuccessful appeals.

The defendant Ioan Hossu brought a motion to strike the action against him under Rule 21 without leave to amend.

The court struck certain claims (breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith in contractual performance, and breach of fiduciary duty) without leave to amend, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court struck other claims (fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment) with leave to amend, determining that while deficiencies existed, they could potentially be cured through proper pleading.

The court did not strike the conversion claim.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's request to adjourn the motion and ordered that the defendant provide bank account information regarding disputed funds held in Cuba.

The plaintiff, a lawyer and board member of Villa Charities organizations, sued for defamation following publication of an article in Corriere Canadese criticizing the organizations' development proposal for a community centre site.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Ontario's anti-SLAPP provisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the article addressed a matter of public interest, the plaintiff established substantial merit to the defamation claim and that the defendants had no valid defences.

The court found the statements were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, and were published.

The defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege all failed.

The court also found the harm to the plaintiff's professional reputation and personal well-being was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

This is an appeal of a construction lien action decision rendered by Associate Justice Wiebe following a summary trial.

The defendants appealed the judgment and costs decision on five grounds: improper admission of reply evidence in breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn; erroneous factual findings regarding door frames and drywall/soundproofing; incorrect calculation of the quantum meruit claim; and an excessive costs award.

The appellate judge dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's findings.

The court upheld the quantum meruit award of $56,554.67 and the costs award of $85,000 at trial, and awarded costs to the successful respondent on appeal.

A dispute arising from a failed gas station development venture.

The plaintiff invested $350,000 for a 50% interest in a company owning a property in Thorndale, Ontario, with the defendant agreeing to complete development obligations in exchange for a 50% interest for $50.

The relationship deteriorated due to lack of communication and delays.

The defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation and commenced litigation.

The property was eventually returned to the original company.

The court found the defendants liable for oppression and fraud, ordered a shotgun buy-sell arrangement based on independent appraisal, and awarded damages at large.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application to enforce an oral agreement and the granting of an application for partition and sale of property.

The successful parties (Bruno Rosso, Nancy Rosso, and Salvatore Rosso) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale to Bruno and Nancy, and on a partial indemnity scale to Salvatore.

The court considered factors including the complete success of the parties, the complexity of the issues, the proportionality of costs to the property value, the reasonableness of counsel fees and time spent, and the conduct of the unsuccessful party during litigation.

The defendants appealed an associate justice's decision dismissing their rule 5 motion to remove individual defendants and professional corporation defendants from a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claim brought by former partners of a law firm.

The defendants also brought a pleadings motion under rules 25.06 and 25.11 to strike the statement of claim.

The court upheld the associate justice's decision, finding that the individual defendants and professional corporation defendants were properly joined under rule 5.02(2)(c) because there was doubt as to the person or persons from whom the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

The court rejected arguments that the pleading was vague or scandalous, finding it adequately pleaded the claims against all defendants.

The court dismissed both the appeal and the pleadings motion.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking $1,075,000 in fees allegedly owed under a term sheet dated December 9, 2022.

The defendants resisted and brought a counter-motion for "boomerang" summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the express language of the term sheet did not entitle the plaintiff to the claimed payments.

The origination fee was payable only upon closing of the financing, which never occurred.

The commitment fee was payable only upon issuance of a letter of approval/commitment meeting the term sheet's indicative terms and conditions, which the plaintiff never provided.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' counter-motion, dismissing the action entirely.

Costs of $30,000 were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs, property and business owners in Kensington Market, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from blocking access to a laneway that they claimed provided a right of way to their parking areas.

The defendant had temporarily blocked the laneway as part of a permitted five-storey residential development project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case for any of the three bases of easement claimed (by deed, by prescription, or by necessity).

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

Additionally, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs due to their conduct in blocking an alternative access route and their solicitor's misleading affidavit.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer.

The defendant failed to respond to the Statement of Claim, resulting in deemed admissions of fact.

The court granted the motion for default judgment, awarding damages of $170,415.42 plus $6,879 in costs and disbursements, inclusive of HST.

The court determined that a six-month notice period was appropriate based on the plaintiff's age and length of service, and calculated damages based on monthly compensation of $18,883.34 and $60,000 in owed commissions, less amounts already paid.

The plaintiff commenced an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression remedies arising from his ouster as director and CEO of the defendant corporation.

The defendants filed a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, claiming the plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement.

The defendants failed to properly advance their motion, initially abandoning it for six weeks, then repackaging it as a rule 21 motion.

After multiple procedural disputes, case conferences, and a motion for leave to appeal a case conference endorsement, the defendants failed to file their motion confirmation form by the required deadline.

The motion was deemed abandoned under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, finding the defendants engaged in improper delaying tactics throughout the nine-month proceeding.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant O3 Industries LLC to enforce payment of a $3 million debt owed by Antamex Industries ULC under an asset purchase agreement.

O3 had provided a guarantee of Antamex's obligations.

O3 raised three defences: (1) the guarantee did not obligate O3 to pay the purchase price; (2) Oldcastle breached representations regarding equipment condition and permits (the equipment defence); and (3) Oldcastle failed to transfer or misrepresented ownership of accounts receivable from the Dalton Project (the Dalton Project defence).

The court granted summary judgment in part, finding the guarantee clearly bound O3 and that the equipment defence was barred by issue estoppel from a prior arbitration.

However, the court found the Dalton Project defence raised a genuine issue requiring trial as to whether the guarantee was void.

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 applicant sought a declaration that he was entitled to insurance coverage under his policy with Security National Insurance Company following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had been driving with an expired driver's license at the time of the accident, which occurred after he suffered a sudden medical episode.

Security National denied coverage on the basis that the applicant was not authorized by law to drive.

The applicant argued he had established the defence of due diligence to the offence of driving without a valid license, alternatively seeking relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicant had demonstrated due diligence and was entitled to insurance coverage.

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.

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.

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 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.