Karanpaul Singh Randhawa

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ appeal from a trial judgment awarding $160,000 to the respondent for loans that were not repaid.

The trial judge’s decision was based on unjust enrichment, as there was no agreement on the term or interest rate of the loans.

The Court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to allow the appellants to withdraw deemed admissions or to introduce late evidence, finding no procedural unfairness.

The Court also found no error in the exclusion of a late-proposed witness and in the trial judge’s unjust enrichment analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed motions by Canguard Group Limited and 11039342 Canada Inc. for a stay of orders expunging their mortgages, pending their appeals of those orders.

The motions judge found the grounds of appeal weak, no irreparable harm (especially with a no-transfer term imposed on the property owner), and the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay.

The underlying orders were based on findings that the mortgages were fraudulent and no funds were advanced.

The appellant, Mr. Zaidi, appealed the dismissal of his application to enforce a settlement agreement against the estate of his uncle and the estate trustee.

The application judge had rescinded the settlement on grounds of innocent misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence.

Mr. Zaidi argued procedural unfairness, that a trial should have been directed due to credibility issues, that his alternative claim for unjust enrichment was overlooked, and that the principle of settlement finality was not respected.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the issues were squarely before the lower court, upholding the summary determination as agreed by parties, confirming the unjust enrichment claim was not properly advanced, and reiterating that settlements, while generally final, can be rescinded on valid contractual grounds.

Leave to appeal costs was also denied.

This motion concerned applications by the Dallas Defendants and Mangal Defendants to withdraw deemed admissions arising from their failure to respond to a Request to Admit from the Plaintiffs.

The court applied a three-part test, considering whether the proposed amendments raised a triable issue, if the admission was inadvertent, and if withdrawal would cause uncompensable prejudice.

The court found that the moving parties failed to establish a triable issue regarding property valuation, notice of power of sale, or Ms. Dallas's authority.

While counsel claimed inadvertence, the delay in bringing the motion after being alerted to the issue was unexplained.

Significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, including delays and costs, was identified.

The court also noted the moving parties' inconsistent positions on property valuation in a related proceeding.

Considering all circumstances, the motions to withdraw deemed admissions were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs under Rule 56.01.

The court found that the plaintiff Alexandra Tang was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and that the plaintiffs (including the corporations) lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential cost award.

However, the motion was dismissed due to the defendants' obstructive conduct during cross-examinations regarding the merits of the claim, their "hardball litigation" tactics, and significant delay in bringing the motion.

The court emphasized that the merits of the claim are relevant, especially when impecuniosity is not alleged, and that the defendants' conduct prejudiced the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate their case's merits.

This decision concerns the costs arising from an application where the applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement, which proceeded as a motion and cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court previously found the settlement agreement unenforceable due to misrepresentation, unconscionability, and/or undue influence, awarding the funds in court to the respondent.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court awarded the respondent $28,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the applicant's initial action reasonable and noting the respondent's abandoned jurisdictional challenge.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement regarding a condominium unit against the deceased's estate and trustee.

The respondent, the deceased's widow and estate trustee, sought to set aside the agreement.

The court treated the application as a motion for summary judgment and found the settlement agreement unenforceable due to misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence, awarding the disputed funds to the respondent.

The father brought a motion to retroactively vary child support, release trust funds, and order the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother brought a cross-motion to compel the father to retain an independent financial professional to determine his true income, citing unexplained bank deposits and his history of earning a high income despite alcoholism.

The court dismissed the father's motion for partition and sale, finding the mother established a competing right under the Family Law Act to preserve the home for herself and the child.

The court granted the mother's motion to appoint a financial expert under Rule 20.1 of the Family Law Rules and adjourned the father's motion to vary support pending the expert's report.

The applicant, Eva Oppong, sought substantial indemnity costs following a successful application where her lease was declared valid and continuing.

The respondent, Desaro Holdings Inc., opposed substantial indemnity, arguing for partial indemnity or no costs.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs in the full amount claimed, totaling $21,784.82, finding that while the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity, the applicant should be indemnified for enforcing her legal rights.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought the return of possession and quiet enjoyment of leased premises after being wrongfully locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord claimed the lease terminated based on a purported amending agreement, which the court found invalid due to lack of authenticity and consideration.

The court granted the applicant equitable relief from forfeiture, declared the original lease valid until February 28, 2022, and ordered the landlord to take all lawful steps to deliver vacant possession, despite a new tenant being in possession.

A trial was ordered to determine damages for the wrongful termination and dispossession.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture and return of leased premises.

The respondent landlord requested an adjournment, which was granted by the court.

The adjournment was primarily due to the lack of notice to a third-party tenant in possession and the need for potential further evidence regarding a contentious lease amending agreement.

The court set specific terms for the adjournment, including notification of the third party and a timetable for outstanding materials.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought urgent relief from lease forfeiture by the respondent landlord.

This endorsement scheduled an urgent application hearing and provided comprehensive procedural directions for electronic filing, email service, and remote hearing arrangements, designating a specific justice to preside over the matter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellants' appeal from a summary judgment decision against them in the amount of approximately $950,000, setting aside the judgment and directing the matter proceed to trial.

The appellants sought enhanced costs and personal liability for opposing counsel, alleging that respondents' counsel misled the court by failing to ensure the amended statement of defence was included in the appeal book.

The court rejected the enhanced costs request but addressed the broader issue of counsel's obligations to ensure the court has all material necessary for a full appreciation of the matter under appeal.

The appellants, Ashok and Usha Badhwar, appealed a summary judgment granted against them in the amount of $954,842.55 on a guarantee they signed for their son's company.

The motion judge refused to consider a defence regarding lack of consideration because it was not explicitly pleaded, despite acknowledging it could be a genuine issue for trial.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in her approach to pleadings and in refusing to consider a defence that was adequately pleaded when read generously.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and directed the matter proceed to trial on all issues.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The charge was laid on December 12, 2015, with trial scheduled for January 15-16, 2017, resulting in a total delay of approximately 12 months and 4 days.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27.

Although the Crown failed to provide timely disclosure of the breath video (a critical piece of evidence in a refuse breath sample case), and defence counsel did not proactively pursue pre-trial procedures, the net delay fell well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The court found that the defence failed to establish that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, and dismissed the application.