Jasdeep Singh Bal

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order striking their statement of defence and counterclaim due to their persistent failure to answer undertakings, produce relevant documents, and comply with multiple court orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The court found no reversible error, emphasizing the fundamental importance of disclosure, the prejudice caused by non-compliance, and the court's authority to impose proportionate remedies, including striking pleadings, for flagrant disregard of court process and orders.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, a former business owner, from competing with their vehicle leasing business and to compel the transfer of phone numbers and production of records, following a share purchase agreement.

The plaintiffs had ceased installment payments to the defendant, alleging misrepresentation and breach of restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the main injunction for non-competition, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, primarily because the restrictive covenants were not in force while the purchaser was in default of payment obligations.

The court also dismissed the requests for phone number transfer and production of records as premature or not contractually required.

A minor injunction restraining the defendant from holding himself out as a representative of the business was granted as it was unopposed.

The Plaintiffs sought to strike the Defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim due to persistent failure to comply with undertakings and multiple court orders for document production, specifically banking records related to over $1.1 million in advanced funds for a real estate development.

Despite repeated adjournments and "last chances" from previous judges, the Defendants provided materially deficient responses without credible explanation.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber Limited v. 2480375 Ontario Inc., the court found the non-compliance deliberate, material, and impactful on the administration of justice.

The court emphasized the importance of timely disclosure in commercial litigation and the proportionality of striking pleadings in such circumstances.

The motion was granted, and the Defendants' pleadings were struck.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim due to their persistent failure to answer undertakings, produce relevant documents, and comply with multiple court orders regarding disclosure of banking transactions.

The defendants had received several adjournments and "last chances" from previous judges but continued to be materially deficient in their disclosure, particularly concerning the use of over $1.1 million advanced by the plaintiffs for a real estate development.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber Limited v. 2480375 Ontario Inc., the court found the defendants' non-compliance deliberate, unequivocal, and without reasonable explanation, significantly impacting the litigation's cost and delay.

The court concluded that striking the pleadings was a proportionate remedy to uphold the integrity of the civil justice system and the Commercial List's efficiency.

Acasi Machinery Inc. brought a motion to stay an action commenced by Jeremy Kessler Canadian Mustard Inc. o/a Kozlik’s Mustard in Ontario, arguing that a forum selection clause in their contract mandated disputes be resolved in Florida.

The court dismissed the motion, finding strong reasons to avoid the clause.

The clause was neither negotiated nor brought to Kozlik's attention, indicating an unequal bargaining power.

The court also applied the Moran principle, stating that manufacturers should expect to defend negligence claims where their products are used, and noted that the availability of Zoom reduces the significance of witness location in determining the convenient forum.

Ontario was found to have a real and substantial connection and to be the convenient forum.

The applicant landlord brought an application for a declaration that a commercial tenancy was terminated and sought vacant possession.

The respondent tenant argued that the lease had been extended to August 2023 through either a written agreement or an oral agreement based on part performance.

The court found that the landlord had waived strict compliance with the written notice requirement for the option to renew, resulting in an automatic one-year extension.

However, the court rejected the tenant's argument for a longer extension, finding no written agreement and that the doctrine of part performance did not apply.

The court ordered the tenant to deliver vacant possession at the end of the one-year extension period.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.

The added defendants (purchasers) moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff, to lift a stay on a writ of possession, and for the return of their purchase funds after a failed real estate closing.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPL and that the equities favoured the purchasers.

The court discharged the CPL, lifted the stay on the writ of possession, and ordered the vendors' solicitor to immediately return the purchase funds to the purchasers, as the vendors failed to provide vacant possession and clear title on closing.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to file a late responding affidavit to the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, after the deadline in a peremptory timetable order had passed.

The defendant also sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's affiants, which the plaintiff opposed on the basis that the defendant had not filed an affidavit.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice favoured allowing the late affidavit to ensure the case was decided on its merits.

The court also held that under Rule 39.02(1), a party is not required to serve an affidavit as a condition precedent to cross-examining an adverse party's affiant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) over a Scarborough property owned by the defendants, alleging that funds advanced as unsecured debt for a different development were diverted to the Scarborough property, creating a constructive trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue regarding an interest in land.

The court also found that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo to avoid disrupting the defendants' ongoing redevelopment efforts.

The parties settled an application regarding property standards and snow falling from the respondent's roof, but could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $24,026, arguing he was practically successful.

The court found that because there was no Rule 49 offer to settle specifying costs, and the outcome on the merits remained unknown, no order as to costs was appropriate.

A previous $500 costs award for an adjournment remained payable.

The appellant purchased a home constructed by the respondent in 1997.

Mould was discovered in 2002 due to faulty construction and water leakage.

The mould was remedied and the house was sold without loss in value.

The appellant claimed damages for psychological and emotional injuries and out-of-pocket expenses.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the psychological injuries were too remote and not reasonably foreseeable.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in dismissing the claims for psychological and emotional injuries and that the contractual warranty limitations were irrelevant to the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly applied the test from Mustapha v. Culligan and correctly concluded that a person of ordinary fortitude would not have suffered the serious psychiatric injury claimed in these circumstances.

The defendant builder brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from mould discovered in a home purchased in 1997.

The plaintiff claimed over $6 million for physical, emotional, and financial injuries.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mould caused his physical injuries or financial losses.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for over $10 million for fraudulent misrepresentation and other torts.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in refusing their request for an adjournment on the eve of trial to retain new counsel, after they had filed notices of intention to act in person.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly balanced the competing interests, including the appellants' ability to defend themselves, the prejudice to the respondent, and the public interest in the efficient resolution of trials.

The moving parties sought a stay of an order scheduling an election for the Board of Directors of a not-for-profit corporation pending their appeal.

The moving parties, whose memberships were challenged, argued they were improperly excluded from voting.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm in the loss of the right to vote, the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the election to proceed.

The corporation had been without an election since 2003 due to protracted litigation, and the potential disenfranchisement of a small number of voters did not outweigh the need for a functioning board.

Following a successful motion involving a conflict of laws analysis concerning jurisdiction over an accident that occurred in New York State, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized the complexity of the proceeding and the importance of the issues to the parties.

Although the successful moving party sought over $23,000 in partial indemnity costs, the court found the hours claimed excessive relative to the reasonable expectations of the losing parties.

The court therefore reduced the claim and awarded partial indemnity costs in a significantly lower amount.

Costs were ordered payable jointly by the plaintiff and an opposing defendant insurer.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident in Niagara Falls, New York on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter, or alternatively that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, sued the New York drivers as well as her Ontario insurer under underinsured motorist coverage.

Applying the framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that none of the presumptive connecting factors established a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the defendants resided in New York and the tort occurred there.

The plaintiff’s insurance contract with an Ontario insurer was characterized as secondary and contingent and insufficient to ground jurisdiction.

The court also declined to invoke the forum of necessity doctrine despite the expiration of the New York limitation period.

In a class proceeding arising from a major propane facility explosion, the plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim and certify claims against additional defendants associated with the ownership and leasing of the facility property.

The court considered whether the proposed amended pleading satisfied the s. 5(1)(a) requirement of the Class Proceedings Act by disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

Claims in strict liability and nuisance against the property-owning defendants were struck because the pleadings failed to meet the legal prerequisites and improperly characterized the alleged nuisance.

Negligence claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act were also dismissed because the alleged damages occurred off the premises and the statute only applies to persons entering the premises.

However, the court held that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded a viable common law negligence claim based on the defendants’ alleged rights of control and failure to intervene in unsafe operations.

Certification against the remaining defendants proceeded solely on the basis of the common law negligence cause of action.