Tahir Majeed

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Aliamisse O. Mundulai from a final order in a family law dispute with Ying Huang.

The appeal concerned parenting, property, and financial issues following the parties' separation.

The court found no reversible error in the trial judge’s decisions regarding the child’s therapy, beneficial ownership of an office unit, and the treatment of the respondent’s pension for equalization purposes.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Aliamisse O. Mundulai, who sought to set aside a decision refusing an extension of time to bring a panel review and to stay enforcement of certain paragraphs of a Superior Court order in a family law dispute.

The court found that the relevant rule (r. 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure) applied, and that the moving party had not demonstrated irremediable hardship.

The responding party, Ying Huang, was awarded costs of $3,000.

The plaintiff, Resco Mortgage Investment Corporation, moved for summary judgment to enforce a defaulted mortgage against the defendant, Sandeep Kaur.

The defendant argued the renewed mortgage terms were unconscionable due to unequal bargaining power and an improvident bargain.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining that the mortgage terms were not unconscionable as Resco did not act predatorily or take advantage of a power imbalance.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, allowing recovery of principal and interest, but disallowed certain default fees claimed by the plaintiff, and granted leave *nunc pro tunc* for the timing of the notice of sale and statement of claim.

This appeal was dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal determined that the proper jurisdiction for an appeal involving a single payment of less than $50,000 is the Divisional Court.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

The Crown sought probation while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge for three years, finding it was in the accused's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The accused was a young man, recently arrived in Canada on a student permit, with no prior criminal record, who demonstrated remorse.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court declined to make a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, finding that a conditional discharge does not constitute a sentence within the meaning of the applicable legislation.

The plaintiff brought an action for $82,000 based on a promissory note signed by the defendants, his brother and his brother's family.

The funds were advanced to support the defendants' immigration to Canada, which involved an arranged marriage and various financial arrangements.

The defendants pleaded non est factum, claiming they did not understand the document because it was in English and they thought it was an immigration form.

The court rejected this defence, finding the document was explained to them in their native language and they signed it voluntarily.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the primary defendant who attended the trial but failed to testify.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff with substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, operators of cheque cashing and currency exchange businesses, sued a bank for breach of contract after the bank froze their accounts and reversed deposits arising from several fraudulent cheques.

The bank counterclaimed for overdraft balances and sought to enforce personal guarantees and personal liability against the principal of the companies.

The court held the bank acted within its contractual rights under the financial services agreements to reverse dishonoured deposits and debit the accounts.

Evidence showed the principal failed to respect the separate corporate identities, was wilfully blind to obvious indicators of cheque fraud, and used corporate accounts interchangeably for personal purposes.

The court pierced the corporate veil and imposed joint and several liability on the companies and their principal for the outstanding debts and overdrafts.