Alamgir Hussain

This is a costs endorsement following a trial where the plaintiff partially succeeded on his claim for $100,000 and successfully defended a $2 million counterclaim.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, but reduced the claimed fees by $10,000 due to the plaintiff's late abandonment of general damages claims, which resulted in unnecessary expenditures of time.

The final costs were fixed at $70,876.32.

The Plaintiff sought repayment of a $100,000 loan from the Defendant.

The Defendant argued the loan was conditional on the sale of certain assembled properties and counterclaimed for $2 million in damages, alleging breach of a partnership agreement related to a land assembly project.

The court found no evidence that the loan was conditional and held it was due.

Furthermore, the court determined that no enforceable partnership agreement existed between the parties regarding the land development or sale, as essential terms were never settled or formalized in writing as intended.

The Plaintiff's action for the loan repayment was allowed, and the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a non-competition agreement.

The motion was adjourned because the defendants' counsel had difficulty serving their client and lacked instructions, and the individual defendant was not aware of the motion.

The court also noted deficiencies in the plaintiffs' evidentiary materials regarding the similarities of the businesses.

The court directed the defendants' counsel to promptly bring a motion to be removed from the record and ensure the defendants are properly notified of the pending motion.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and other torts arising from three private text messages.

The court found that the text messages were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and were not communicated to anyone other than the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the alternative tort claims as an improper attempt to dress up a defamation claim.

Summary judgment was granted, the action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The appellants' counsel failed to appear for the appeal hearing, and an associate later advised the court that counsel had no instructions to proceed due to an inability to communicate with the appellants.

The respondent requested the appeal be dismissed with fixed costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal with costs of $6,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, as requested by the respondent.

The plaintiff, Afroza Mary Mir, moved for summary judgment seeking specific performance or damages for the defendant Larry Gordon Brandt's alleged breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendant denied the binding nature of the agreement, citing mistake, undue influence, and non est factum, predicated on his vulnerability due to a brain injury, and alleging his real estate agent (third party Keller Williams Referred Urban Realty) acted without authorization.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to the complex factual and legal issues, particularly the defendant's cognitive health, the agent's authority, and the inescapable overlap between the main action and the derivative third-party claim, which raised concerns about partial summary judgment and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The court also granted the defendant's preliminary motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit and factum related to settlement privilege and inadmissible opinion evidence/new damages evidence.

The plaintiff purchased a frozen fish business from the defendants, which included a non-competition clause.

The plaintiff subsequently hired one of the defendants as a general manager, but later terminated him for alleged financial improprieties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction, alleging the defendants were competing in the white fish market in breach of the non-competition clause.

The court found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of breach, that irreparable harm would result without an injunction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.