Karan Khak

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for repayment of investment funds and to amend their Statement of Claim to plead fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants sought to remove a Mareva injunction.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their Statement of Claim, maintained the Mareva injunction, and granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs for $1,617,679.53, finding fraudulent misrepresentation by the principal defendant.

Issues of additional quantum owed and punitive damages were reserved for trial.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent in the fixed, all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

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

Neither party uploaded materials to CaseLines despite obligations under the Consolidated Practice Direction and reminders from the court office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as abandoned without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 12, 2023.

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

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a second oppression remedy application and a cross-motion.

The applicant, Michelle Gojkovich, was largely successful in her motion, which sought the appointment of a monitor and other relief, while the respondents' cross-motion to disqualify the applicant's counsel was dismissed.

The court awarded the applicant $60,000 in partial indemnity costs, payable jointly and severally by John Rody and Organic Products Consulting Inc., explicitly exempting Buhbli Organics Inc. from liability.

The court also reiterated an earlier order for John Rody to reimburse Buhbli Organics Inc. for legal fees paid on his behalf.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property, asserting a 30% ownership interest based on a trust agreement and an investment for a property flip.

The Defendants opposed the CPL, arguing the funds were for safekeeping, and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the CPL, allow payment of $75,000 into court, and delete a caution on title.

The court found a triable issue regarding the Plaintiffs' interest but dismissed the CPL motion, concluding that damages would be a satisfactory remedy as the property was not unique and the investment's purpose was profit.

The court ordered the Defendants to pay $75,000 into court following the property's sale but declined to order the immediate deletion of the caution on title.

The landlord moved to lift the stay of an eviction order granted by the Landlord and Tenant Board pending the tenants' appeal.

The tenants had failed to pay monthly rent and accumulated substantial arrears.

Despite court directions, the tenants did not provide evidence of rent payments or dispute the arrears, instead alleging the landlord was unreasonable.

The court found the tenants were abusing the statutory stay to live rent-free and lifted the stay of eviction, ordering the tenants to advise if they intend to pursue the appeal or face dismissal.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The respondent landlord moved to lift the stay of the eviction order pending appeal, citing the appellants' failure to pay rent, mounting arrears of $33,000, and failure to respond to court directions.

The court found the appellants were taking advantage of the stay to occupy the unit without paying rent and showed no intention to pursue the appeal.

The court ordered the stay lifted and directed that the appeal would be dismissed as abandoned if the appellants did not advise the court of their intention to pursue it by a specified date.

The applicant brought a motion within an ongoing oppression remedy application to join a related corporation, Buhbli Brands Inc., as a respondent and to appoint a monitor over the respondents' businesses.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to dismiss the applicant's motion and disqualify her counsel, alleging the applicant unlawfully accessed the individual respondent's email accounts and obtained privileged communications.

The court found that the applicant's counsel acted appropriately by segregating unread privileged documents and notifying opposing counsel.

Finding no prejudice to the respondents, the court dismissed the cross-motion, joined the related corporation on a go-forward basis, and appointed a monitor to oversee the businesses.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of substantial sums of money through fraudulent conduct and misrepresentations regarding mortgage investments, a property development project, and a family trust.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of a premeditated fraudulent scheme, irreparable harm, and a serious risk of asset dissipation, particularly given the individual defendant's prior regulatory sanctions for fraudulent conduct.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.

The applicant and respondent were former romantic and business partners who co-owned a corporation.

Following the breakdown of their personal relationship, the respondent excluded the applicant from the business, denied her remuneration, and diverted corporate assets to his own consulting company.

The applicant sought an oppression remedy, requesting that the respondent be ordered to purchase her shares.

The court found that the respondent's conduct was oppressive and violated the applicant's reasonable expectations.

However, because the respondent could not afford to buy the shares and the business was entirely dependent on him, the court ordered the respondent to pay $170,000 in damages for the diverted remuneration and ordered the corporation to be wound up.

The defendants brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to stay the enforcement of a consent order, alleging their former counsel agreed to it without their instructions.

The plaintiff had been attempting to enforce a defaulted mortgage since 2018.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet the test for an injunction.

Email evidence contradicted their claims of lack of authority, showing they had input into the consent order's terms.

The defendants also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.