Ira G. Parghi

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.

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.

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 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.

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.