Latania Dyer

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, moved for summary judgment to collect a liquidated debt of $361,144.04 from the defendant, Issameddin Dahalan.

The defendant disputed the interest rate, claiming it was misrepresented as fixed rather than variable.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining that the loan agreement clearly stipulated a variable interest rate tied to the prime rate.

The defendant's conduct of making payments after rate increases also suggested awareness of the variable nature.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding amount plus pre-judgment interest and costs.

This decision concerns a costs award following a successful application for partition and sale.

The applicant, Sukhminder Sidhu, who was fully successful at trial, sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $43,000.

The respondents, Parminder and Amandeep Sidhu, who had brought an unsuccessful cross-application for unjust enrichment, did not make any submissions on costs.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the claimed costs to be reasonable, considering factors such as the complexity of the matter, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate.

The respondents were ordered to pay the full amount jointly and severally.

This case addresses the equitable remedies of unjust enrichment and resulting trust within a multi-generational family living arrangement.

The applicant, Sukhminder Kaur Sidhu, initiated an application for partition and sale of a property.

The respondents, Parminder Sidhu and Amandeep Sidhu (her son and daughter-in-law), filed a cross-application claiming unjust enrichment and a 50% interest in the property based on their financial and in-kind contributions.

Sukhminder also sought a declaration that Amandeep held her 1% interest in the property on a resulting trust for Sukhminder.

The court found no unjust enrichment, concluding that both parties mutually benefited from pooling resources and the joint living situation, and that the contributions were part of an agreed-upon arrangement, thus negating any deprivation to the respondents.

The court further determined that Amandeep held her 1% interest in the property as a resulting trust for Sukhminder, as the transfer was solely to facilitate Sukhminder obtaining a mortgage, and Amandeep provided no adequate consideration for the beneficial interest.

The applicants, who are the children and accountant of the respondent, brought an application for declarations that the respondent is incapable of managing property and personal care, and incapable of granting or revoking powers of attorney.

The respondent, an elderly man with significant real estate holdings, had executed powers of attorney in 2011 in favour of the applicants.

Following a stroke and cognitive decline, the applicants assumed management of his affairs.

Subsequently, the respondent married a new partner and executed new powers of attorney with the assistance of a friend.

The court reviewed competing capacity assessments and medical evidence, concluding that the respondent has been incapable of managing property and personal care since September 2017, and incapable of granting or revoking powers of attorney since November 2018.

The court affirmed the authority of the applicants under the 2011 powers of attorney.

Following a trial of an issue regarding shareholder oppression and the valuation of shares, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $618,000.

The court found the applicant was only partially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court significantly reduced the requested quantum because the applicant's costs submissions lacked detail and the applicant engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct by refusing to allow experts to confer and resisting settlement efforts.

The court awarded the applicant $138,425 in costs, which included $2,500 for costs thrown away due to the respondent's improper communication with a witness during cross-examination.

The applicant minority shareholder sought a determination of the purchase price for her 40% interest in a real estate holding corporation owned with her former spouse.

The court found that the respondent majority shareholder engaged in oppressive conduct by failing to provide financial disclosure, operating the corporation solely for the benefit of his separate operating company, and destroying corporate records.

To remedy the oppression, the court valued the applicant's shares at $1,832,054.60 without applying a minority discount.