Masood Fariad

Following a three-day trial where the plaintiff was largely successful and recovered $555,493, the plaintiff sought costs.

The defendants had abandoned a counterclaim of over $1 million just prior to trial.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $21,117, finding the amount proportionate, fair, and reasonable given the complexity and circumstances of the case.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement to open a used car dealership, agreeing to split the costs and profits 50/50.

The defendant purchased a property for the business through his corporation and later sold it for a significant profit after the business venture ended.

The defendant argued the plaintiff repudiated the agreement by failing to contribute his share of the downpayment, thereby forfeiting any right to the profits.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the plaintiff had made his required contributions in cash and via cheques from a friend, corroborated by witness testimony and a bare trust declaration signed by the defendant.

The court awarded the plaintiff $555,493, representing his initial contribution and 50% of the net profit from the property sale, but dismissed his claim for renovation expenses due to lack of proof of payment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied an income replacement benefit (IRB) and two treatment plans.

On a rehearing, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the IRB, as medical evidence supported a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment due to chronic pain and a right shoulder impairment.

The Tribunal denied the April 11, 2022 treatment plan as it was submitted while the applicant was in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and duplicated an approved OCF-23.

The September 21, 2022 treatment plan was approved as reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's reliance on its assessors' reports was not unreasonable.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement benefit and treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Vice-Chair found that the original adjudicator made significant factual errors by overlooking a key letter from the applicant's treating physician that connected his injuries to the accident, and by failing to explicitly consider the applicant's psychological expert evidence.

These errors were found to likely have impacted the outcome of the decision.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and the matter was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the existing written record.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on multiple insurer's examinations (IEs) which concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, as his family doctor's clinical notes did not directly attribute his ongoing pain to the accident and did not address his inability to work.

The Tribunal accepted the consistent findings of the respondent's IE assessors and dismissed the claims for IRB, medical benefits, interest, and an award.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated March 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside default steps taken by the plaintiff and to strike, stay, or dismiss the action.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel acted improperly in noting the defendants in default, as the defendants had promptly indicated their intention to bring a motion to strike/stay the action, which constitutes a defence.

The court also determined that the plaintiff's action was duplicative of an existing lien action by Prompt Builders Inc. and violated the corporate separateness principle (*Foss v. Harbottle*), as the plaintiff, as a sole shareholder, was suing for damages owed to the corporation.

The court granted the motion, setting aside the noting in default and dismissing the plaintiff's action, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to amend the original lien action to include any personal claims.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis for the default issue and partial indemnity for the rest, totaling $8,500.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the salesperson sexually assaulted and extorted a customer, failed to provide written contracts, and failed to report criminal charges.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order to protect the complainant's identity.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the salesperson's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal also found that the salesperson was an interested person in the corporate dealer, and that the dealer's officer made false statements on renewal applications.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.