Mohan D. Sharma

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties' child and for the child's return from India.

The respondent mother, who travelled to India with the child for a vacation and did not return, sought an adjournment.

The court granted the adjournment but made an interim, without prejudice finding that the child is habitually resident in Ontario and that the court has jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, citing compelling documentary evidence of the family's life in Ontario.

The plaintiff, a former partner in a law firm with the defendants, brought an action for a declaration of partnership dissolution, an accounting, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of shares.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the plaintiff's departure from the partnership, precluding further adjustments or liability for a Vancouver office lease.

However, the court found the defendants liable for conversion of the plaintiff's personal shares held as security, awarding $65,226.15 in damages.

The court also awarded $50,000 in damages for breach of fiduciary duty due to the defendants' failure to disclose partnership draws taken shortly before the plaintiff's departure, though it rejected claims that this failure caused the plaintiff's subsequent significant tax liabilities.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order to permit her to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Niagara-on-the-Lake, and to grant her sole decision-making and primary residence.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought primary residence if the mother moved.

The court found the proposed move constituted a 'relocation' under the amended Divorce Act and would significantly impact the children's relationship with the father.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court denied the relocation, finding the move was primarily for the benefit of the mother's new husband and would negatively impact the children's strong relationship with their father and grandparents.

However, finding a material change in circumstances due to the parties' inability to co-parent, the court terminated joint decision-making, allocating medical/dental/mental health decisions to the mother and education/extra-curricular decisions to the father, and eliminated mid-week overnight swaps.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the applicant father for child support purposes and interim disbursements for legal fees and an expert.

The court found the applicant had provided sufficient disclosure, dismissing the respondent's motion for further disclosure, but ordered applicant's counsel to obtain a comprehensive compensation letter from Manulife to address remaining concerns.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for interim disbursements, citing the unreasonableness of her litigation conduct and her financial capacity.

The applicant was awarded costs for a prior contested adjournment.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a summary trial where judgment was granted to the plaintiff against both corporate and personal defendants for $50,000 each, plus interest, under a debenture and personal guarantee respectively.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, relying on a contractual provision in the guarantee and a prior offer to settle.

The defendants argued the costs were excessive.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's costs reasonable and warranted a higher scale due to the defendant's failure to admit a key fact (personal guarantee) that prolonged the trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $55,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs were successful in obtaining an interlocutory injunction enforcing restrictive covenants related to the purchase of a dental practice.

In this costs decision, the plaintiffs sought partial or substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent argued costs should be deferred to the arbitrator who would hear the underlying damages claim.

The court held it was appropriate to determine costs now, as the injunction motion effectively determined the respondent's ability to practice dentistry and the court had already reviewed the voluminous materials.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought an action to collect on a $50,000 loan to the corporate defendant and a personal guarantee allegedly signed by the individual defendant.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and that the individual defendant's signature on the guarantee was forged.

The court found the loan was not a demand obligation, meaning the limitation period had not expired.

Although a handwriting expert confirmed the signature on the guarantee was likely forged, the court found the individual defendant had authorized or acquiesced to others signing on his behalf and had a settled intention to guarantee the loan.

Judgment was granted against both defendants.

The plaintiffs in a defamation action brought a motion for a sealing order and publication ban.

The action arose from social media posts made by the defendant, a family member, following a dispute over funeral attendance.

Applying the test from Sherman Estate, the court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or their biographical core.

The court declined to award costs to the successful defendant because her counsel had previously sent a letter threatening to use the open court principle to embarrass the plaintiffs if they did not abandon their claim.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against his family physician, alleging the physician failed to diagnose and treat a respiratory infection over several months.

The plaintiff was eventually hospitalized and required invasive surgery for streptococcal empyema, resulting in chronic pain and other ailments.

The court found that while the plaintiff did suffer from respiratory symptoms prior to his hospitalization, he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he reported these symptoms to the defendant during his monthly visits.

The court held that the defendant met the standard of care of a reasonable family physician and dismissed the action.

Following a judgment granting the applicant tenant a declaration of unlawful lease termination and restoring possession, the tenant sought costs of up to $24,637.91 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the tenant's limited success on its arguments, and the reasonable settlement offers made by the landlord.

Finding that Rule 49 cost consequences were not appropriate, the court fixed costs payable to the tenant at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a Master's order that amended pleadings and added a defendant, the successful appellants sought costs.

The court found the amounts sought excessive because the appellants were unsuccessful on several grounds of appeal and the costs of the underlying motion were fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded the TRG defendants $13,000 and the added defendant $12,000, inclusive of the underlying motion costs.

The plaintiffs sought interlocutory relief to enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality covenants against a dentist who left a purchased dental practice and began practising within the restricted radius.

The court held that the clean hands defence failed, found a strong prima facie case on the non-compete claim, and concluded that the covenant was linked to the sale-of-business bargain and was likely enforceable.

The court further held that the ESA amendments introduced by the Working for Workers Act, 2021 did not retrospectively void the 2020 agreement.

Irreparable harm was established through likely loss of goodwill and patient movement, the balance of convenience favoured enforcement, and the court also ordered the return of patient information taken from the practice.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision dismissing their motion to strike the respondents' statement of claim for lack of particularity or dismiss it for delay, and granting the respondents' motions to extend time for service and compel answers to undertakings.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraudulent conveyances following a $2.3 million judgment against the corporate defendant.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's application of the test for delay or the principles for striking pleadings.

The court declined to consider the appeal regarding the undertakings motion because the corporate defendant was not an appellant and was unrepresented.

The plaintiffs brought an interlocutory motion for injunctive relief against the defendants regarding the solicitation of dental clients and a non-compete clause.

Following the hearing of the motion, the court issued an interim order enjoining the defendants from soliciting clients of the dental centre and prohibiting one of the defendants from practicing dentistry within a 5-kilometre radius until the final decision on the interlocutory motion is released.

The applicant commercial tenant brought an urgent application to recover possession of leased premises after being locked out by the respondent landlord for non-payment of a security deposit.

The parties had orally agreed to an installment plan for the deposit, but the tenant missed the first payment.

The landlord issued a notice of default and terminated the lease shortly after.

The court found that while there was an oral agreement for installments, there was no agreement to waive the five-business-day notice period required by the lease for default of Additional Rent.

Therefore, the termination was premature and unlawful.

The court ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant, conditional on payment of the deposit and rent.

The defendants appealed a Master's order that granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add new defendants and new claims regarding supplier contributions to an advertising fund, and ordered related documentary production.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal in part.

The court found that adding a new corporate defendant on the eve of trial constituted an abuse of process given the extensive delays in the nine-year-old franchise dispute.

The court also held that the Master erred in allowing the amendments regarding supplier contributions, as they constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred and not legally tenable under the clear terms of the franchise agreements.

The Master's orders adding the new party and allowing the supplier contribution amendments were set aside.

The defendants appealed an Associate Judge's order that required the net proceeds from the sale of two properties to be held in trust or paid into court upon the discharge of certificates of pending litigation (CPLs).

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure on the initial ex parte motion for the CPLs and that the Associate Judge failed to properly apply the test to vacate a CPL.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in law in the Associate Judge's assessment of material disclosure, balancing of equities, or exercise of discretion to require security.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The defendants sought $97,599.95 in substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer was valid and the plaintiff fared less favourably, justifying costs on a higher scale.

However, noting the lack of complexity and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $45,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a summary judgment motion to enforce mortgage debts and seek possession of a commercial property after the defendants defaulted.

The defendants argued the motion should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to initially adduce the standard charge terms, engaged in negotiations that invalidated the Notice of Sale, and included amounts in the Notice of Sale that violated the Interest Act.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the standard charge terms were known to the parties, the negotiations did not constitute enforcement steps, and while the Notice of Sale contained accounting errors (including an improper 24% holdover interest rate), these defects did not invalidate the notice or preclude summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment for the principal amounts, adjusted interest rates, and allowable fees, and issued an order for possession.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, which was denied.

In this costs decision, the plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded based on the presumption in s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found it appropriate to depart from the presumption and award costs to the plaintiff, noting the underlying dispute was purely private and the defendants' voluminous motion record was disproportionate, suggesting a misuse of the anti-SLAPP rule.

The defendants were ordered to pay $80,000 in costs.