Ranbir S. Mann

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The application judge had rescinded the settlement on grounds of innocent misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence.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the unjust enrichment claim was not properly advanced, and reiterating that settlements, while generally final, can be rescinded on valid contractual grounds.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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in fraud and deceit, the defendants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made unsupported allegations of fraud against the defendants on an inadequate evidentiary record, warranting cost sanctions.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $246,213.93.

The court declined to award costs against the plaintiffs' counsel personally.

The plaintiffs, Tajammul Hussain Rana and Premier Technical Consultant Ltd., brought an action alleging various causes of action, ultimately narrowing their claims to the intentional torts of fraud and deceit against Mohammad Zakir Ramzan and 2182224 Ontario Inc. operating as FHS Zoom.

The plaintiffs claimed they were induced to invest $500,000 in a non-party company, ET Zone Supplies Inc., based on Ramzan's alleged false representations, including his purported role as "Head of Investment Division" of ET Zone.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of civil fraud or deceit on a balance of probabilities.

The court concluded there was no material false representation by Ramzan that caused the plaintiffs' loss, and any initial misrepresentation was neutralized by the plaintiff's awareness of ET Zone's true principal.

The action was dismissed.

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 appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering them to pay unpaid royalties to the respondent franchisor.

The written franchise agreement expired in 2014, but the appellants continued to operate using the franchisor's branding, purchase from exclusive suppliers, and initially pay royalties.

The motion judge found the agreement was continued by conduct and granted summary judgment for royalties owed within the two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the agreement continued by conduct and that the matter was appropriate for summary judgment.

The plaintiff franchisor brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid royalties and advertising expenses incurred after the franchise agreement expired.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and raised credibility issues.

The court found that the terms of the expired agreement continued to govern the parties' relationship as they had operated under it for 19 months post-expiry.

However, the court held that claims arising more than two years before the Statement of Claim was issued were statute-barred.

Judgment was granted for amounts billed within the limitation period, with interest.

The Bank of Montreal sought to set aside a property transfer from Samira Bibi to her mother, Hanifan Bibi, as a fraudulent conveyance and unlawful preference under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The court found that the transfer was made with intent to defeat creditors, that the mother was complicit, and that the consideration was inadequate.

The transfer was set aside.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her employer, Asco Manufacturing.

The plaintiff had worked for the predecessor company since 1981 before it was sold to the defendant in 2017.

The court found that under s. 9(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the plaintiff's employment was continuous.

The court determined that summary judgment was appropriate and awarded the 64-year-old plaintiff 20 months' notice, amounting to $66,391.40, plus costs.

The plaintiff, Nadeem Ahmed Mughal, brought a civil fraud action against Bama Inc. and its directors, Abdul Raheem Qureshi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, and Badar Sohail Khan, after losing $210,000 invested through Qureshi.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation, deceit, conversion, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found Qureshi personally liable for civil fraud and Qureshi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, and Bama Inc. jointly and severally liable for conspiracy to cause economic injury.

The claims against Badar Sohail Khan were dismissed.

The court also found a purported settlement agreement between the plaintiff and ET Zone unenforceable due to bad faith and contractual bars.

Judgment was granted for $210,000 plus interest against Qureshi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, and Bama Inc.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and mischief, as well as a restitution order, arising from a road rage incident on a busy highway.

The trial judge found the appellant intentionally stopped his vehicle in front of the complainant's, causing a collision and subsequent altercation where the appellant damaged the complainant's vehicle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and met the legal tests for dangerous driving and mischief.

However, the court varied the restitution order, reducing it to exclude the cost of windshield repair, as the trial judge had not been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant caused that specific damage.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligence regarding legal services provided in India.

The defendants sought to strike claims for punitive damages and allegations that they conducted an illegal business in Canada.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings lacked sufficient particulars to support the claims for punitive damages and the allegations of illegal business operations.

The impugned paragraphs were struck with leave to amend.

The accused was charged with flight from police and dangerous driving following an incident on April 19-20, 2015, near Ignace, Ontario.

A police officer activated emergency lights to stop the accused's vehicle for speeding in poor weather conditions.

The accused's vehicle pulled over briefly, then accelerated rapidly and fled at excessive speed through a built-up commercial area.

The vehicle subsequently crashed in a ditch.

The court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the accused's testimony as unbelievable and accepting the police officers' evidence regarding the accused's excessive speed and dangerous manner of driving in adverse conditions.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The appellant challenged the admission of a witness’s out-of-court description of the driver, arguing necessity and threshold reliability were not established and that residual discretion should have been exercised to exclude the hearsay.

The court held the witness’s faded memory satisfied necessity, the surrounding circumstances provided adequate threshold reliability, and there was no basis to invoke residual discretion.

The court further held the appellant’s statement that no one else drove the van was properly treated as compelling circumstantial evidence on identity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and failing to provide a breath sample following a collision and subsequent police investigation.

She argued the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown to call viva voce evidence on a Charter application despite late filing, by finding reasonable and probable grounds for an Intoxilyzer demand, by concluding her ability to drive was impaired, by finding intentional refusal to provide a breath sample, and by rejecting a Charter s. 7 claim relating to viewing Intoxilyzer results.

The court held the trial judge properly exercised discretion regarding the Charter application, correctly concluded the officer had reasonable and probable grounds, and reasonably found impairment based on the cumulative indicia of impairment.

The court also held that bad driving is not an essential element of impaired operation and that the evidence supported a finding of intentional refusal to provide a breath sample.

No Charter breach arose from the technician preventing the appellant from viewing the Intoxilyzer screen.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired operation under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code following a summary conviction trial.

He argued that he was not operating the vehicle, that his investigative detention was arbitrary contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, and that the seizure of his breath samples violated s. 8 of the Charter due to improper administration of the approved screening device.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings and factual determinations were entitled to deference and were supported by the evidence.

The officer had reasonable grounds to detain the appellant while investigating a nearby collision and subsequently developed reasonable suspicion of impaired driving.

The roadside breath demand and arrest were found lawful, and the breath sample procedure was properly conducted.

The defendant brought a motion seeking full-indemnity costs after the plaintiff receiver discontinued an action against him shortly before trial.

The defendant argued that the discontinuance amounted to complete success and that the claim against him had always lacked merit.

The court applied Rule 23.05 and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered whether the plaintiff had a bona fide cause of action and was justified in commencing and pursuing the proceeding.

The court found that the receiver had reasonable grounds to bring and continue the action based on evidence of a fraudulent financing scheme and tracing of funds connected to the purchase of real property.

Given that the action was justified and the discontinuance resulted from economic considerations following settlement relating to the key asset, the court declined to award costs.

The appellant appealed a conviction for care or control of a motor vehicle while over 80 mg of alcohol in blood.

She argued that the Crown failed to disclose police notes, that the investigative detention in a private parking lot was unlawful, that the breath samples constituted an unlawful search, and that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from the alleged disclosure breach and that the issue was not properly pursued at trial.

Applying the ancillary police powers doctrine and the framework from Mann and Clayton, the court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate a potential impaired driver in a bar parking lot and that the detention and breath demands were lawful.

Minor misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge were found to be peripheral and not material to the conviction.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and failing to provide a suitable breath sample following a motor vehicle collision in Brampton.

The accused pled not guilty and alleged violations of her Charter rights under sections 7 and 8.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption, based on the totality of evidence including the collision, observations of physical signs of impairment, and admissions of alcohol consumption.

The court also found that the accused willfully failed to provide suitable breath samples despite numerous opportunities, clear instructions, and warnings.

The court rejected the accused's Charter arguments, finding no unlawful search or seizure and no violation of procedural fairness.

The accused was convicted on both counts.