Maneka Kaur

This is a costs endorsement following a trial in a commercial dispute involving unpaid accounts.

The plaintiff was partially successful in its claim, recovering $430,809, while its claim for additional amounts based on oral agreements was dismissed.

The defendants' counterclaim was entirely dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff as the successful party, fixing costs at $150,000 in fees and $62,210.53 in disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected arguments for cost shifting based on a Rule 49 settlement offer that was less than the judgment and declined to impose sanctions based on allegations of impropriety made by either party.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the action by Gloria Rajkumar and the family trust against Roger Rajkumar, and the granting of the counterclaim by Rita Rajkumar against Gloria and the Simac companies.

The court awards costs to Roger and Rita, applying the principles of partial and substantial indemnity, and addresses the reasonableness of the amounts claimed, the effect of a Rule 49 offer, and the connection between the main action and the counterclaim.

The court dismissed the main action against Roger Rameshwar Rajkumar, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability for environmental damage to property.

The court granted the counterclaim of Rita Josomatee Rajkumar and 1526381 Ontario Inc. against Gloria Rajkumar, Superior Independent Medical Assessment Centre Ltd., and Simac Canada Inc., finding that Rita was constructively dismissed and entitled to 18 months’ notice and damages.

The decision addresses the legal standards for piercing the corporate veil, the distinction between employee and independent contractor, and the requirements for constructive dismissal and reasonable notice.

The court dismissed the main action against Roger Rameshwar Rajkumar, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability for environmental damage to property.

The court granted the counterclaim of Rita Josomatee Rajkumar and 1526381 Ontario Inc. against Gloria Rajkumar, Superior Independent Medical Assessment Centre Ltd., and Simac Canada Inc., finding that Rita was constructively dismissed and entitled to 18 months’ notice and damages.

The decision addresses the legal standards for piercing the corporate veil, the distinction between employee and independent contractor, and the requirements for constructive dismissal and reasonable notice.

In supplementary reasons, the Court of Appeal addressed an error in the application judge's formal judgments regarding the continuation of a right of survivorship after a joint tenancy was severed into a tenancy in common.

The court granted the respondent leave to cross-appeal without a formal notice, varied the judgments to extinguish the right of survivorship, and issued a vesting order transferring 100% of the beneficial interest in the property to the respondent as the beneficiary of a resulting trust.

This appeal concerned the effect of two gratuitous transfers of property into joint tenancy.

Nigel Jackson transferred his home into joint tenancy with Lori Rosenberg, intending to gift only a right of survivorship to avoid probate fees, while retaining control during his lifetime.

Later, he severed the joint tenancy.

The application judge found a partial resulting trust, concluding that only the right of survivorship was gifted and that Jackson retained the right to sever.

Rosenberg appealed, arguing for a full beneficial interest and that the severance was ineffective.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Rosenberg's appeal, affirming that a gift of a right of survivorship can exist without immediate beneficial rights and that the donor retains the unilateral right to sever the joint tenancy, thereby ending the right of survivorship.

The court also clarified that no right of survivorship could subsist after severance.

This motion concerned the court's approval of a settlement agreement in a breach of contract action.

The defendant, Mary Ozigbo, had been deemed incapable of managing her finances due to early onset Alzheimer's disease after entering into an agreement of purchase and sale for her property with the plaintiff.

The agreement failed to close, leading to litigation.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement whereby the plaintiff's action would be discontinued without costs, and the initial $30,000 deposit would be returned.

The court, pursuant to Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the settlement to be fair and reasonable and granted the order for its approval.