Gurpreet Singh Chandok

The decision resolves competing applications regarding the ownership and directorship of 2761499 Ontario Inc. (“276”) and related financial claims among parties involved in several investment companies.

The court finds that Gurvinder Singh Saini and Najinder Garcha are the only directors and shareholders of 276, rejecting Minkle Mittal’s claim to ownership or directorship.

The court also dismisses Mittal and Golden Freight Forwarding and Marketing Inc.’s counter-application for relief regarding other companies, finding no evidentiary basis for their claims.

Costs are awarded to Saini and Garcha.

The decision resolves competing applications regarding the ownership and directorship of 2761499 Ontario Inc. (“276”) and related financial claims among parties involved in several investment companies.

The court finds that Gurvinder Singh Saini and Najinder Garcha are the only directors and shareholders of 276, rejecting Minkle Mittal’s claim to ownership or directorship.

The court also dismisses Mittal and Golden Freight Forwarding and Marketing Inc.’s counter-application for relief regarding other companies, finding no evidentiary basis for their claims.

Costs are awarded to Saini and Garcha.

The Plaintiffs, Hassan Siddiqui and Sara Al-Ahmar, sought summary judgment against real estate agents and their agencies (Gyanesh Paliwal, Re-Max Realty Specialists Inc., Sanjay Bhayana, and World Class Realty Point) to recover commissions and a premium paid in an assignment of a pre-construction home purchase.

The underlying purchase agreement was not completed by the builder, who returned the deposit but not the premium or commissions.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled with the original assignor, Haarikka Sivanarayan.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding no contractual basis for recovery from the real estate agents as the Plaintiffs did not directly pay the commissions, and the assignor was responsible for them.

Furthermore, the court found no unjust enrichment as there was no direct deprivation of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the agents' enrichment.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought payment of a second mortgage balance, leading to a court-ordered reference to determine the outstanding amount.

The court dismissed the reference, finding that the dispute involved complex issues of law and fact, including other alleged debts and investments, which went far beyond the scope of a simple accounting reference as defined by the original order and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to expand the reference, stating that such complex matters required a full trial for proper adjudication.

The appellant, Jaswant Singh Kooner, appealed a trial judgment that found he owed his lawyer, Peter Verbeek, outstanding legal fees.

The trial judge had found an oral retainer agreement for fees and disbursements, not a contingent fee, and awarded Verbeek $59,342.42 plus $22,500 in costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding the oral retainer agreement or the reasonableness of the fees.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also dismissed.

The defendant sought to stay proceedings and a decade-old summary judgment obtained by the plaintiff for a credit card debt, along with the seizure and sale of her property.

The defendant argued for an adjournment to review the case due to new information about her former lawyer's professional misconduct and alleged delay by the plaintiff in enforcing the judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no grounds for an adjournment or to set aside, vary, or stay the judgment, noting the plaintiff had properly renewed its writ of seizure and sale and the defendant's recourse, if any, was against her former lawyer.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff lawyer brought an action for unpaid legal fees totaling $68,893.92 against his former client.

The parties had an oral retainer agreement for mortgage enforcement work.

The defendant disputed the terms of the retainer and the reasonableness of the fees.

The court found that the parties agreed to an hourly rate of $575.

After assessing the accounts and reducing some charges for unreasonableness, the court ordered the defendant to pay $38,342.42 in outstanding fees, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.