Ronald Sleightholm

The moving party defendants sought an extension of time to deliver their Notice of Appeal from a trial decision finding personal liability for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with a real estate investment.

The motion judge applied the well-settled test for extensions of time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeal as the central issue.

The moving parties failed to identify any error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's findings, which included adverse credibility findings based on the failure to call a key witness and the failure to preserve business records.

The motion was denied with costs.

Appeal from summary judgment granting declaratory relief regarding a mortgage registered as security for a $300,000 consulting fee contingent on the receipt of a cannabis cultivation licence from Health Canada.

The motion judge found that the fee was conditional on licence issuance and, since no licence was ever obtained, the payment obligation never crystallized.

The appellate court upheld the finding that the mortgage was not a standalone unconditional obligation but security for a contingent payment, and that the motion judge properly considered the factual matrix including the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Transfer and Consultancy Agreement.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following a trial regarding the estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance.

The court considered submissions from both parties, each seeking costs on different bases, but ultimately determined that no costs should be awarded to any party due to the divided success at trial and the nature of the family estate dispute.

Each party is to bear their own costs.

This addendum corrects a factual error in the reasons for decision released February 5, 2025, regarding the date on which shares were given to the parties.

The court clarifies that the shares were given at Christmas 1996, not Christmas 2019, as previously stated in paragraph 169.

This was a fraudulent conveyance action concerning the transfer of a property from Punit Lala and Pawan Lala to Pawan Lala and Rani Lala.

The transfer occurred after Punit Lala was served with a motion for summary judgment in a fraud action by the applicant, Infolink Technologies Corp. The court found that Punit Lala conveyed the property with the intent to defeat Infolink's ability to collect on a potential judgment, and that the other defendants (Pawan, Rani, and Kishore Lala) either knew about this intent or were wilfully blind to it.

The court also determined that Rani and Pawan Lala were not bona fide purchasers for value, as they did not act in good faith and the property was not transferred at fair market value.

The transfer was declared void as against Infolink, allowing them to execute against Punit Lala's ¼ interest in the property.

Infolink's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The applicant sought to enforce an arbitral award requiring the respondent to sell shares to the applicant.

A third-party judgment creditor of the respondent opposed the application, arguing her writ of seizure and sale gave her a prior interest in the shares.

The court held that under section 50(3) of the Arbitration Act, enforcement is mandatory unless specific exceptions apply.

Furthermore, applying equitable principles, the respondent had no remaining interest in the shares to which the writ could attach once the applicant's contractual right to acquire them arose.

The arbitral award was enforced.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The court dispensed with the requirement for a formal issued and entered order in the motion record to save court resources.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party.

The Estate of Joseph Zabukovec appealed a trial judge's decision granting Judith Tomek and Joseph Zabukovec Jr. joint beneficial ownership of 75% of a property based on unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The Estate argued the trial judge erred in valuing the land and failed to consider Joseph Sr.'s contributions to the house construction.

The Court of Appeal found an error in the land valuation but declined to interfere with the remedy, citing the broad discretion in crafting equitable remedies for proprietary estoppel.

The court affirmed the trial judge's order as consistent with the parties' original intention for the house and house lot to be conveyed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Litigation Administrator, Edward Waters, was personally ordered to pay costs due to acting in his own interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale, a notice of garnishment, and a tracing order to enforce a 2013 judgment.

The court established a timetable on consent and scheduled the motion to be heard on August 31, 2021.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion for interim spousal support.

The wife, who was on long-term disability, sought support based on the husband's income as a police officer and his retained corporate earnings.

The court found the wife had established a prima facie entitlement to support based on need and the husband's ability to pay.

The court imputed the husband's income at $170,000, including base salary, overtime, and corporate retained earnings, and ordered interim spousal support of $3,500 per month retroactive to February 2020.

The applicant Wife and respondent Husband, married in 1983 and separated in 2011, sought a beneficial interest in a 15-acre property owned by the Husband's late father (Joseph Sr.), who died intestate.

The Husband and Wife had built and continuously improved a house on the property, believing they would inherit it.

The court addressed claims of oral agreement, resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and proprietary estoppel against Joseph Sr.'s Estate.

The court found no oral agreement or resulting trust but established unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel regarding the house, but not the entire acreage.

The claims were not statute-barred.

The court awarded the Husband and Wife a joint beneficial ownership of 75% of the property via a constructive trust, with the Estate retaining 25%, and granted the divorce.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's oppression action on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing as a shareholder, officer, or director.

The plaintiff failed to file responding evidence and instead brought a motion to amend the claim, which the defendants opposed as statute-barred.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action and dismissed the motion to amend.

The court further ordered the plaintiff's lawyer to personally pay $20,000 in substantial indemnity costs under Rule 57.07(1), finding that the lawyer caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily by taking untenable positions, failing to attend court, and breaching peremptory deadlines.

The applicant moved for an interim order for the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and for interim spousal support.

The parties cohabited for several years, during which the respondent financially supported the applicant while he obtained his degrees.

The court dismissed the motion for partition and sale, finding that a trial was necessary to determine the parties' respective beneficial interests in the property, especially given the imminent trial date.

The court granted the motion for interim spousal support on a needs basis, ordering the respondent to pay $1,458 per month retroactive to the date the application was served, but declined to order the respondent to secure the support with a life insurance policy.

The defendants moved to vacate a noting of default and default judgment totaling $275,238.36, which arose from their failure to repay promissory notes related to a real estate investment.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside default judgment, considering promptness, plausible excuse, arguable defence, prejudice, and the administration of justice.

The motion was dismissed, as the defendants failed to demonstrate promptness, provide an adequate explanation for delay, or establish an arguable defence, particularly due to their failure to provide requested documentation.

Setting aside the judgment would prejudice the plaintiffs and undermine the integrity of justice.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, security orders against the respondent's estate, and an order for non-depletion of her equalization claim, citing urgency due to the respondent's terminal illness.

The court granted the motion to proceed before a case conference due to urgency and awarded interim spousal support of $547.00 per month, binding on the respondent and his estate.

However, the court declined to grant the additional security orders, noting the uncertain strength of the applicant's claims regarding spousal support delay and equalization limitation periods.

The interim support order was made reviewable in four months.

The moving party Estate sought leave to appeal two final discretionary cost orders that dismissed its motion for costs against the impecunious respondent and her former lawyer personally.

The motions judge had found the respondent was unable to pay and that the lawyer, who acted pro bono for a limited time, did not act frivolously or vexatiously.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no error in principle and that the motions judge's decision was not plainly wrong.

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment where the plaintiff was largely successful.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff against Mushtaq Raja, Minaj Transport Inc., Maryat Investments Inc., and Direct Ex Logistics Inc. The decision to award substantial indemnity costs was based on Mushtaq Raja's fraudulent conduct prior to and during the litigation, and the defendants' unproven allegations of fraud against the plaintiff.

The court declined to award costs to Munaza Raja and Janish Raja, despite their successful dismissal from the action, due to their minor roles and the lack of separate costs incurred on their behalf.

Specific cost amounts were determined for each paying defendant, with minor adjustments for Maryat Investments Inc. and Direct Ex Logistics Inc.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court refusing leave to appeal two costs orders.

The appellant argued the leave motion should have been heard orally rather than in writing.

The court held that a single judge of the Divisional Court does not have inherent or statutory jurisdiction to set aside an order of another single judge of the same court.

The motion was adjourned to a panel of the Divisional Court, which has the statutory authority to set aside a motion order of a single judge.

The plaintiff, Arif Hayat, brought an action against the defendants, Mushtaq Raja and his corporations, for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

Hayat advanced over $555,000 to Raja for investments in a trucking company and a restaurant venture.

Raja used corporate funds for personal expenses, falsely represented his own financial contributions, and fraudulently induced Hayat to resign as a director and surrender his shares in the restaurant corporation.

The court found Raja liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppressive conduct.

The court ordered Raja, Minaj Transport Inc., and Maryat Investments Inc. to pay Hayat $475,000, and ordered Direct Ex Logistics Inc. and Raja to repay a $36,179 loan and issue shares to Hayat.

The defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.

The respondent sought leave to appeal two costs decisions.

The motion judge had declined to award costs against the applicant, who withdrew her spousal support application, due to her inability to pay.

The motion judge also declined to order costs personally against the applicant's former counsel, finding the application was not frivolous or vexatious.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the issues did not meet the high threshold for leave under Rule 62.02 and the motion judge's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference.