Melvin I. Rotman

The applicant sought a declaration that $525,000 provided to his son and daughter-in-law in 2011 to purchase a home was a loan to be held in constructive or resulting trust, rather than a gift.

The respondents contended the money was a gift and that the application was time-barred.

The court found the money was clearly a gift based on the signed gift letter, the applicant's admission of never requesting repayment, his payment of rent to the respondents, and his knowledge that he was not on title.

The court also found the application statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as the claim accrued in 2011 and the application was brought in 2024.

The plaintiff, Michael Forstner, sued the defendants, Manbir Singh Sandhu, Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, and Computer Window Inc., for conversion of a computer/dialer and for assault and battery following an altercation.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.

It found that the plaintiff failed to prove conversion, as the computer was returned, and that the alleged assault and battery by Mrs. Sandhu was not established on a balance of probabilities.

The plaintiff's credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistent evidence regarding the purchase date and timeline of events.

Damages for conversion and personal injury were also not proven.

The defendants' counterclaim was withdrawn at the outset of the trial.

The appellant, Jaswant Singh Kooner, appealed a trial judgment that found he owed his lawyer, Peter Verbeek, outstanding legal fees.

The trial judge had found an oral retainer agreement for fees and disbursements, not a contingent fee, and awarded Verbeek $59,342.42 plus $22,500 in costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding the oral retainer agreement or the reasonableness of the fees.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also dismissed.

The appellants, Twisha Talpade and Vineet Talpade, appealed a lower court order concerning mortgage enforcement and their dismissed counterclaim.

They alleged judicial bias, procedural unfairness, and errors in the calculation of outstanding mortgage amounts and the failure to award them damages.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, noting that the appellants had consented to the lower court's process while represented by counsel.

The court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's factual findings regarding the mortgage amounts or the decision not to award damages, as the counterclaim had been dismissed by consent.

The appeal of the costs order in favour of Jay Parmar and Canada Lend was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that held them liable for the balance of a business purchase price.

Their defence was based on fraudulent misrepresentations about the business's revenues.

The motion judge had dismissed this defence, relying on an "entire agreement" clause in the purchase agreement and the appellants' opportunities for due diligence.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in law by giving preclusive effect to the entire agreement clause, as such clauses do not immunize against fraudulent misrepresentation.

Furthermore, opportunities for due diligence do not negate a party's right to avoid a contract based on fraudulent misrepresentation if actual knowledge of the untruth was not proven.

The Court concluded that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding the fraudulent misrepresentation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgment and remitting the matter for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a vendor take-back mortgage, promissory note, and personal guarantee following the sale of a coin laundry business to the defendants.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for production of financial records, arguing the plaintiff misrepresented the business's income.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court enforced the entire agreement clause in the purchase agreement, noting the defendants had ample opportunity to conduct due diligence, verify the income, and walk away from the transaction before closing.