Joga Singh Chahal

The moving party sought to set aside an order from a motion judge that dismissed his motion for an extension of time for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision, which had concluded that the underlying appeal lacked merit.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the moving party.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering termination of their tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The appellants argued they were owners under a rent-to-own agreement, not tenants.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the notice of appeal disclosed no error of law, as the interpretation of the agreement was a question of mixed fact and law.

The court also noted the appellants' unexplained delay in perfecting the appeal and their failure to pay over $30,000 in rent arrears.

The defendants moved to set aside an ex parte order that granted the plaintiff, Kevin Fernandes, leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property.

The plaintiff had previously sued Mohammad Salman Khalid for failing to complete a property purchase.

Mohammad later declared bankruptcy after transferring property interests to his wife and mother.

The plaintiff then initiated a second action to set aside these transfers as fraudulent conveyances and obtained the CPL.

The court considered two tests for CPLs in fraudulent conveyance actions: a prima facie case of fraud and a higher threshold test.

The court found numerous "badges of fraud" including unexplained property transfers, inconsistent separation dates, misleading addresses, and continued co-habitation, which raised compelling suspicions of intent to defeat creditors.

The court maintained the CPL, concluding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of fraud and that the balance of convenience favored preserving the CPL to prevent asset dissipation.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted on an outstanding mortgage debt.

They admitted the debt was outstanding but argued that fraudulent representations by their mortgage agent led to the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the fraud allegations were the subject of a separate proceeding and did not preclude summary judgment on the debt.

This decision addresses the costs of motions previously heard, where Rakhi Kalia's motion to dismiss the action or disqualify counsel was largely dismissed, and Adarsh Kalia's cross-motion for a timetable and case management was granted.

The late Mrs. Kalia's estate sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, alleging Rakhi Kalia's delaying tactics.

The court found that while Rakhi Kalia's unsuccessful motion delayed the action, her conduct was not reprehensible enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to Mrs. Kalia's estate in the amount of $13,500.00, all inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents and to compel the defendants to appear for continued examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff had previously conducted brief examinations for discovery of the individual defendants but failed to request the documents now sought.

The court dismissed the motion against the individual defendants, finding the plaintiff had his opportunity during discovery and failed to use it, and there was no evidence the requested documents were in their possession.

However, the court noted the plaintiff could still schedule an examination for discovery of the corporate defendant.

This costs endorsement followed a trial where claims of negligence against a regional municipality were dismissed, along with related Family Law Act claims and a cross-claim.

The successful municipality sought partial indemnity costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the complexity, importance, and length of the 23-day trial, as well as the conduct of counsel and the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

The court found the municipality's requested costs somewhat high and the opposing parties' proposals somewhat low.

A total partial indemnity costs award of $365,000.00 (inclusive of fees and disbursements) was made in favor of the municipality, apportioned 65% to the plaintiffs and 35% to the co-defendant, whose interests were largely aligned with the plaintiffs due to a Mary Carter agreement.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a single motor vehicle collision when the vehicle, driven by the defendant driver, lost control after traversing a dip in a rural road.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the municipality, alleging the road was in a state of non-repair.

The plaintiff and the driver entered into a Mary Carter agreement and jointly pursued the municipality for liability.

The court found that the dip in the road did not constitute a state of non-repair, as it did not pose an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver.

The court concluded the collision was caused by the driver's excessive speed and distraction from opening a beverage bottle.

The action against the municipality was dismissed.

The plaintiff, 1806700 Ontario Inc., initiated an action in Newmarket alleging fraud related to a third mortgage, seeking damages for litigation costs incurred in prior Brampton and Toronto proceedings.

The Khan defendants and Hameed defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff cross-moved to amend its claim.

The court found the claim against the Hameed defendants was an impermissible collateral attack on previous costs rulings and barred by absolute privilege, striking it without leave.

The claim against the Khan defendants also suffered from these defects, but the court granted leave to amend due to the Khan defendants having put the third mortgage's validity in issue in a separate Toronto action.

The court also ordered the Newmarket and Toronto actions transferred to Oshawa due to improper commencement location and stayed the Newmarket action pending the final determination of the Brampton proceedings, emphasizing the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant moved to set aside an order requiring security for costs of $10,000 before perfecting an appeal.

The underlying appeal was from a Superior Court decision dismissing the applicant's motion to set aside a referee's final report.

The Court of Appeal upheld the security for costs order, considering the applicant's history of multiple proceedings, many found to be unnecessary or inappropriate, and the weak merits of the appeal.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the intervenor.

The Applicant requested an adjournment of an arbitration hearing regarding statutory accident benefits, citing the need for further medical examinations scheduled on the first day of the hearing.

The Insurer opposed the adjournment.

The Arbitrator refused the adjournment, finding that the Applicant's counsel had failed to act diligently in reviewing the file and scheduling the examinations, and that granting the adjournment would cause undue delay and prejudice to the Insurer.