Mahgol Taghivand

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,000 following the termination of a ghostwriting contract.

The appellants argued the Deputy Judge erred in contractual interpretation, failed to consider the manuscript as crucial evidence, misapplied quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, and denied procedural fairness by relying on an unpleaded doctrine.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge's contractual interpretation and factual findings were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The court also held that the application of quantum meruit was procedurally fair in the Small Claims Court context, as the factual matrix was fully explored at trial.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a $200 million action against the provincial Crown, the Secretary of the Cabinet, a hospital, and various physicians, alleging medical malpractice and abuse of power.

The Crown requested a dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the claim against the government defendants lacked any legal basis or material facts, and the claim against the other defendants was an abuse of process as it duplicated an existing action.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The City of Toronto expropriated a property owned by the Multanis.

Dramel Limited and other entities held charges against the property.

Dramel brought a motion to determine its priority rights to a section 25 settlement offer made by the City.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal adjourned Dramel's motion to proceed in writing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the future conduct of the compensation hearing, despite the original owners' ongoing difficulties in retaining legal counsel.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Gurnam Multani and Surjit Multani from the orders of Justice William S. Chalmers.

The appellants had signed forbearance agreements acknowledging the amounts owing under several loans from Dramel Limited.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s reliance on the forbearance agreements to confirm the amounts outstanding and held that the fees charged did not contravene the Interest Act.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party, Dramel Limited (respondent in the appeal), brought a motion for security for costs against the appellants, Gurnam Multani and Surjit Multani, in an appeal concerning over $25 million in mortgage debts.

The court granted the motion, finding that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given the appellants' concession of unpaid loans, acknowledged amounts in forbearance agreements, and findings of deliberate attempts to mislead the court.

The court also determined that the appellants had insufficient assets to cover appeal costs and noted a history of procedural delay and unwillingness to pay.

Security for costs was ordered for both the appeal and a prior costs order.