Mikesh H. Patel

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision in which the deputy judge awarded the respondent contractor $18,813.37 for flooring installation work.

The appellant had refused to pay the balance of the invoice, alleging defective work, and hired another contractor to remedy the problems.

The Divisional Court found that the deputy judge erred in law by deciding the case primarily on the basis of unjust enrichment, a legal doctrine that had not been pleaded or argued by the parties.

The court held that unjust enrichment was irrelevant to the central contractual issue of whether the contractor had fulfilled its obligations regarding the quality of the work performed.

The appeal was allowed, the decision was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Trustee sought to set aside a transfer of property from Kaldep Singh Gidda to Sunita Rani Saini as a transfer at undervalue under section 96(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or alternatively under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court found that the transfer occurred within one year of bankruptcy, between non-arm’s length parties, and for no consideration.

The court rejected Ms. Saini’s defences of resulting or constructive trust, finding no evidence of a trust, loan, or gift, and held that her payments for mortgage and expenses did not create an equitable interest.

The Trustee was successful and awarded costs.

The appellants, Dorinda Nana Afriyie and Adusei Kwame, appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession in a mortgage action brought by Rume Ezomo.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s application of the criteria for setting aside a default judgment, as set out in Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen.

The court held that the motion judge properly considered the relevant factors, including promptness, explanation for default, arguable defence, prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

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

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to temporarily relocate with the children to St. Julian’s, Malta, and for ancillary orders for primary residence and sole decision-making.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, citing concerns about the children's cultural, linguistic, religious, and stability needs, as well as his limited ability to share parenting time post-relocation.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding it in the children's best interests to allow the temporary relocation, primary residence, and sole decision-making to the mother until trial.

The decision also established a graduated in-person parenting schedule for the father, with the mother responsible for travel costs, and liberal daily video contact.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and child support, while the respondent father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting time.

The court found the father's evidence inconsistent and uncorroborated, noting his history of family violence, breaches of court orders, and false allegations of abuse.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, adopted her detailed parenting schedule, and imputed income to the father for child support, ordering retroactive payments.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant mother sought to restrict the respondent father's parenting time due to his unvaccinated status and non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party, having significantly reduced the father's parenting time and imposed safety measures.

Despite the mother's offer to settle not meeting the strict requirements for full indemnity costs, the court awarded partial costs, finding the father's conduct unreasonable for not making an offer and failing to address safety concerns.

The court considered the father's modest income in setting a payment schedule.