Kirpal Singh

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2707, applied to enforce an arbitration award and subsequent cost order against the respondents under section 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The underlying dispute concerned arrears in contributions for shared facilities at a residential condominium.

The respondents did not appeal or challenge the arbitral awards, and the court found that none of the statutory exceptions to enforcement under subsection 50(3) were present.

Consequently, the court granted the application to enforce the awards and ordered the respondents to pay partial indemnity costs of $11,986.51.

The accused, J’Aheim Webbe-Wong, was charged with possession of a stolen motor vehicle and failing to comply with a release order.

The trial's central issue was the identity of the driver, based on recognition evidence provided by a police officer.

Despite the officer's credibility, the court found the reliability of the recognition evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, citing limited prior acquaintance, inconsistent description, human inclination to fill gaps, and cross-racial identification limitations.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The defendant was charged with "turn not in safety" contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a collision between two transport trucks at a private driveway entrance.

The prosecution relied on a dashboard video recording to establish that the other truck was in motion before the defendant commenced his right turn.

The defendant raised a mistake of fact defence, claiming he honestly and reasonably believed the other truck was parked.

The court found that while the prosecution proved the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant successfully established the mistake of fact defence on a balance of probabilities.

The court also addressed issues regarding the loss of the video evidence and the prosecution's disclosure obligations under the Charter.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and an order compelling the defendant solicitor to attend for examinations for discovery.

The dispute arose from an alleged arrangement under which the defendant would refer personal injury clients for medical assessments and pay the plaintiffs’ invoices upon settlement of those claims.

The court found that the defendants’ affidavit of documents was deficient, that privilege had been asserted in a blanket and improper manner, and that relevant documents supporting numerous pleaded defences had not been disclosed.

The court ordered the defendants to serve a supplementary affidavit of documents with proper Schedule “A” production and particularized Schedule “B” privilege claims, and required the defendant to attend for discovery by a fixed deadline.

Costs were awarded to the moving party on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants’ delay, conduct during the motion, and failure to cooperate in the discovery process.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order after the action was dismissed for delay in service of the statement of claim.

The court applied the four‑factor test from Reid v. Dow Corning, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice.

Although the explanation for the delay—largely attributable to counsel’s inadequate supervision of delegated tasks—was weak, the court found the missed deadline resulted from inadvertence rather than deliberate disregard.

The plaintiff acted promptly upon learning of the dismissal and successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the passage of time.

Balancing the factors contextually, the absence of prejudice outweighed the unsatisfactory explanation for delay, and the dismissal order was set aside with an extension of time for service of the statement of claim.