Justin H. Nasseri

The applicants challenged the validity of a purported will dated September 10, 2020, allegedly made by Kenneth Ryan Hill, a wealthy status Indian and permanent resident of the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.

The will named the respondent, Mr. Hill's son, as executor and left his interest in Grand River Enterprises (worth approximately $38 million) to him, with bequests of $5 million to each of his other children (except two who received nothing or $3 million).

The applicants argued that Mr. Hill did not sign the will and did not know and approve of its contents.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that Mr. Hill signed the purported will and that suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution.

The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that Mr. Hill knew and approved of the will's contents.

The purported will was declared invalid both under the Indian Act and at common law.

Two equal 50% shareholders in a lakeside condominium development project in Burlington, Ontario (Nautique Lakefront Residences) sought court guidance on separating their partnership following an acrimonious impasse.

The applicant, an investor providing approximately 90% of equity funding, proposed a court-imposed shotgun buy-sell mechanism.

The respondent proposed a buyout under section 207 of the Business Corporations Act using a valuation report prepared by KSV Soriano Inc. The court found that both parties had engaged in oppressive conduct but determined that separation was necessary to preserve the project.

The court ordered a section 207 buyout by the respondent at a price representing the midpoint between two valuation scenarios, rejecting the shotgun mechanism due to procedural fairness concerns arising from late notice and the respondent's good faith participation in case management conferences.

This is a costs endorsement following a grouped set of appeals and cross-appeals where all parties were entirely unsuccessful.

The court declined to award costs, rejecting the franchisor parties' argument to parse success across various elements of the appeals and cross-appeals.

The court found it inappropriate to do so, concluding that since no party achieved any degree of success, no costs should be awarded.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals and a cross-appeal concerning a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act.

Franchisees Versatile Holdings Inc. and Everest Group Inc. appealed the dismissal of their rescission actions, arguing errors in the burden of proof for disclosure deficiencies and the determination of franchisor's associates.

The franchisor, Paramount Franchise Group Inc., cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that Premium Host Inc. was entitled to statutory compensation, challenging disclosure exemptions, the effect of contract termination on rescission rights, material omission of financial statements, and the finding that Holly Graham and Paramount Leasing were franchisor's associates.

The Court dismissed all appeals and the cross-appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on the burden of proof for rescission, the non-applicability of disclosure exemptions, the right to rescind despite prior termination for breach, the materiality of the financial omission, and the determination of franchisor's associates.

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE) appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it, as a non-party, to produce financial documents for the valuation of shares held by a deceased in estates litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motions judge's discretionary decision.

The court found the documents relevant to the estate's valuation and the validity of the deceased's will, and that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's application of the Rule 30.10 test, emphasizing deference to the lower court's discretion and the effectiveness of the established Confidentiality Protocol in addressing GRE's concerns about privacy and business interests.

This appeal concerned a limitation period defence in an unjust enrichment claim.

The respondent, a hotel, had overpaid hydro costs to the appellant, a condominium, for years due to a flawed utility-sharing formula.

The errors were not discovered until 2017, and the action was commenced in 2018.

The trial judge rejected the limitation defence, finding the errors were not apparent and the respondent exercised reasonable due diligence.

On appeal, the appellant argued errors in the trial judge's discoverability and due diligence analysis, and conflation of actual and constructive knowledge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's findings of fact or legal conclusions, affirming that the errors were not reasonably discoverable and due diligence was exercised.

The Court also rejected arguments regarding juristic reason and equitable set-off.

The appellants, Rouzbeh Behrouz and Majestic Food Service Inc., appealed an order giving effect to a Letter Rogatory from a U.S. District Court, compelling testimony and document production for a U.S. proceeding alleging violations of Iran-trade embargo laws.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay and failing to properly apply the Friction factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error.

The court affirmed the application judge's reliance on evidence for determining relevance and necessity, and his proper application of the Friction factors and balancing of Canadian sovereignty with the enforcement request.

The court also agreed that the evidence sought was not otherwise obtainable, deferring to the U.S. court's conclusion and noting that Canadian residents are not compellable witnesses in U.S. proceedings for testimony or document production.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a denied urgent Norwich motion brought by the plaintiffs.

The court found no urgency for the Norwich order and determined that the defendant was entitled to costs.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs argued for partial indemnity and payment in the cause, with a reduction for the defendant's alleged delay in retaining counsel and a cross-motion.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no reason to delay the costs award or discount the defendant's costs.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant $50,000 in all-inclusive costs forthwith on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for a Norwich order to compel disclosure of information related to alleged defamation and intrusion upon seclusion, stemming from internet postings and domain name purchases.

The court found no urgency, questioned the validity of the intrusion upon seclusion claim regarding dormant domain names, and noted the defamation claim was weak as the articles had been removed.

The motion was deemed a potential tactical move related to ongoing commercial litigation between the parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not justified for a Norwich order and was akin to a fishing expedition.

This is a costs endorsement following motions by three groups of defendants to strike the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim.

The court had previously substantially granted the motion by the 1Plus12 Corporation defendants, dismissed the motions by the Ricci and Karp defendants to strike the statement of claim against them, and struck the plaintiff's affidavit.

This endorsement determines the costs payable between the parties.

The 1Plus12 defendants were awarded $17,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, as they were substantially successful.

The Ricci defendants were awarded $9,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, despite their motion to stay being dismissed, due to the necessity of responding to allegations of criminal conduct that were struck.

No costs were awarded to or against the Karp defendants, as their motion to strike the claim against them was dismissed, although they succeeded in striking the plaintiff's affidavit.

The applicants sought to enforce letters rogatory issued by a Michigan court in a civil criminal-enterprise proceeding.

The application, initially against seven non-parties, was bifurcated to focus on two respondents, Rouzbeh Behrouz and Majestic Food Services, Inc., who later became parties to the Michigan action and opposed the letters rogatory.

The court addressed significant evidentiary challenges, particularly regarding hearsay, clarifying that the Ontario court's role is not to determine the truth of allegations but whether the evidence sought is relevant and necessary for the foreign court.

The court found that the applicants satisfied the prerequisites and criteria for enforcing letters rogatory, including relevance, necessity, and unobtainability of evidence, and that granting the order was not contrary to public policy.

The application was granted.

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

The Sahebdivani defendants were successful on a motion for security for costs and sought full or substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff's conduct was disorganized and protracted the proceedings.

The court found that while the plaintiff's situation was somewhat disorganized, its conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $12,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellants (defendants) successfully challenged the sanction (judgment in the action) imposed by the motion judge for contempt, due to procedural flaws.

The Court of Appeal upheld the initial costs award for the contempt finding, but set aside the costs for the sanctions hearing and the action, and ordered no costs for the appeal, acknowledging the appellants' underlying contemptuous conduct as the root cause of the proceedings.

The appellants, found in contempt for multiple failures to disclose assets and account for misappropriated investment funds, appealed the motion judge's decision to grant judgment against them for approximately $9 million as a sanction for contempt.

The Court of Appeal held that while striking a defence or barring participation can be a sanction for contempt, final judgment is not directly available as a punishment for contempt under Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court found that the motion judge erred by relying on the merits of the action to grant judgment while simultaneously barring the appellants from addressing those merits.

The judgment was set aside, and the matter remitted to a different judge for a new sentencing hearing.

The Sahebdivani defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The defendants established good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, citing evidence that the plaintiff was inoperative, its sole director was an undischarged bankrupt, and it faced significant environmental remediation orders.

The plaintiff failed to meet its onus to demonstrate sufficient exigible assets, providing inadequate financial disclosure.

The court granted the motion and ordered the plaintiff to post $75,000 in security for costs in installments.

The appellants, having been found in contempt of a Mareva injunction and ordered to pay approximately $9 million to the respondents, appealed the judgment.

In this endorsement, the Court of Appeal addressed two motions: the respondents' motion for security for costs of the appeal and the proceeding, and the appellants' cross-motion for a stay of a judgment debtor examination order.

The court granted the respondents' motion for security for costs in part, finding the appellants' contempt a compelling reason under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

The court dismissed the appellants' motion for a stay, determining that the examination order was not automatically stayed and that compliance would not cause irreparable harm given the appellants' existing obligations to disclose assets.

In a long-standing and highly acrimonious family trust dispute, the court considered multiple motions, including motions to dismiss for delay and abuse of process, and motions for a further and better accounting.

The court found that the plaintiffs (two of the sons) had engaged in an abuse of process through a 'scorched-earth' litigation strategy, including failing to produce relevant documents they controlled, changing counsel repeatedly, refusing to mediate, and launching collateral attacks.

Consequently, the court dismissed their actions.

However, recognizing that the trusts still required an accounting for the benefit of the other beneficiaries (the grandchildren), the court ordered the remaining trustees to provide a further and better accounting, and ordered the redemption of the matriarch's shares in the underlying holding company.

The defendants, Zhiyi Zhou and Lina Wu, brought a motion to set aside the report of Master Wiebe, alleging errors in the Master's findings regarding a construction contract dispute and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Master had found that Mr. Zhou engaged in subterfuge regarding contract terms, improperly terminated the agreement, and was not credible.

The Superior Court dismissed the defendants' motion, confirming the Master's report.

The court found no error in the Master's application of the Browne v. Dunn rule, nor any reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the high threshold for such claims and the need to accommodate self-represented litigants while respecting the other party's rights.

The appellant corporation sought to demolish a heritage-designated building it owned.

The City of Hamilton rejected the application and sent written notice of rejection to the sole director of the corporation at his residential address rather than to the corporation's registered address.

The appellant argued that the notice was improperly served under section 67(1)(b) of the Ontario Heritage Act, which requires service to the "last known address" of the person.

The appellant contended that the failure to serve at the registered address meant the municipality failed to comply with the statutory service requirement, triggering a deeming provision that would constitute deemed consent to the demolition application.

The application judge found that the city had taken positive steps to give notice and that the notice was actually received by the sole directing mind of the corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision on the unique facts of the case.