Mohan D. Sharma

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches against the Crown and the Toronto Police Services Board, arising from a 2013 police shooting during the execution of a search warrant and his subsequent criminal prosecution, which ended in acquittals in 2014.

The plaintiff sought leave under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to continue his claim against the Crown.

The Board moved for summary judgment based on the expiry of the limitation period, and the Crown moved to strike the Charter claims.

The court denied leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success for the malicious prosecution claim.

The court granted summary judgment to the Board, as the action was commenced more than six years after the acquittals and the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability.

The Charter claims against the Crown were also struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss an employment-related action on the basis of a signed full and final release executed at termination.

The responding party argued the release was unenforceable due to economic duress and unconscionability arising from dismissal, illness, and alleged inequality of bargaining power.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, found no illegitimate coercive pressure, and concluded the employer had taken sufficient steps to mitigate any bargaining imbalance, including extensions and encouragement to seek legal advice.

The court also held the bargain was not improvident given the payment received and the nature of the release.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded and objected to duplicative billing.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of their offer but reduced the quantum to account for unnecessary duplication, fixing costs at $23,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $116,706.47 following a successful motion and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-motion.

The plaintiff argued the defendant engaged in suspicious and abusive conduct, including commencing a separate action in Korea and insisting on unnecessary foreign law experts.

The court agreed that the defendant's aggressive and strategic conduct unnecessarily complicated the dispute.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000 against the primary defendant and $3,000 against the secondary defendant.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment for schizophrenia and confirming his involuntary admission.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Board made palpable and overriding errors by concluding the appellant lacked capacity simply because he denied having schizophrenia, and by ignoring evidence that he appreciated the consequences of treatment.

The Court also found insufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the appellant's mental disorder would likely result in serious physical impairment due to missed dialysis appointments.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the appellant was ordered released from hospital.

Following a successful application for insurance indemnity, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of $291,052.22.

The court held that the applicants were entitled to full indemnity costs because the insurer wrongfully denied coverage and provided vague reasons until shortly before the hearing.

However, the court found the requested quantum excessive due to over-lawyering and duplication of previous application records.

Costs were fixed at $140,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought declaratory orders after the conservation authority cancelled a permit for their home renovation project.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the application was premature or should be transferred to the Divisional Court as a judicial review.

The Superior Court found that the application fundamentally challenged the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Conservation Authorities Act.

Concluding that the matter was properly a judicial review and not satisfying the urgency requirement for Superior Court jurisdiction, the court ordered the application transferred to the Divisional Court.

The moving defendants brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay and failure to comply with court orders, and for summary judgment on a counterclaim.

The plaintiff and the defendant by counterclaim failed to file any responding material and did not have counsel appear.

The court granted the motions, dismissing the action, granting summary judgment on the counterclaim for $750,000, and awarding costs against the plaintiff and the defendant by counterclaim jointly and severally due to their abuse of process and delay.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff recovered an investment, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $30,394.56, which the defendants argued was disproportionately high compared to actual fees paid.

Applying the principles of proportionality and fairness, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $23,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

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.

The plaintiffs (purchasers) and defendants (vendors) entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium.

Prior to closing, the vendor's agent caused extensive water damage to the property while replacing plumbing.

The purchasers refused to close without a substantial holdback to assess and repair the unknown extent of the damage, which the vendor rejected.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the water damage was substantial, the purchasers acted reasonably and in good faith, and the vendor failed to act in good faith by initially refusing an independent inspection.

The purchasers' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, the agreement was validly terminated, the deposit was ordered returned, and damages for additional living expenses were awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion to consolidate two actions or amend its statement of claim.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to stay the second action based on an arbitration clause in their sales agreement.

The court found that the defendant was estopped from relying on the arbitration clause because it had previously commenced a court action in Korea alleging breach of contract, rendering the arbitration clause inoperative.

The cross-motion to stay was dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion to amend and consolidate the actions was granted to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded $535,032.78 in damages for demolition and reconstruction costs, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $102,663.19.

The defendant argued costs should be reduced due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with pre-trial discovery obligations and because the damages awarded were significantly less than the $2 million claimed.

The court agreed that the plaintiff's failure to produce relevant documents hindered the trial process and reduced the costs award by $10,000, ordering the defendant to pay $92,633.19.

The plaintiff invested $100,000 in a mortgage syndication administered by the defendant corporation.

The defendant, acting as the plaintiff's agent, discharged the mortgage on the original project lands and transferred it to another property without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent.

The plaintiff lost her investment when the related companies entered CCAA proceedings.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found that while the defendant was not a borrower obligated to repay the loan, it breached the subscription agreement by transferring the mortgage without authorization.

The plaintiff was awarded damages of $81,250, representing her initial investment less interest payments received.

The applicant, who was previously convicted of fraud, brought an application seeking a declaration that s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because it is silent on the mens rea for the offence, allegedly violating the Charter.

The court held a preliminary hearing to determine standing and abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant lacked private interest standing because his conviction was final and the issue was moot for him.

The court also found he lacked public interest standing because the application did not raise a serious justiciable issue and he did not have a genuine interest.

Finally, the court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to a collateral attack on his prior criminal conviction.

The plaintiff sought a case conference after the defendant's counsel delayed scheduling a mediation, proposing a date in February 2022.

The court found this delay unacceptable, citing the Supreme Court's direction in Hryniak v. Mauldin to move cases forward in a timely manner.

The court emphasized the importance of mediation in the civil justice system and ordered the parties to hold a mediation before November 30, 2021, along with setting deadlines for updated medical reports and defence medical examinations.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totaling over $260,000.

The court found the requested amounts excessive given the length and complexity of the hearing, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $50,000 to Israel and $36,000 to CTCC, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a last-minute motion to adjourn a virtual summary trial, arguing that credibility assessments and voluminous documents required an in-person hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that virtual trials permit effective credibility assessments and electronic document management is efficient.

The court emphasized the strict limits on trial adjournments under the Consolidated Practice Direction and the necessity of proceeding virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on two defaulted loans totaling $1,000,000 made to the corporate defendant and guaranteed by the individual defendant.

The defendants argued that a $300,000 payment made to the plaintiff's sole director was a partial repayment of the loans, while the plaintiff claimed it was a separate personal loan.

The court granted summary judgment but found that the $300,000 payment constituted a pre-payment on the principal of the loans, reducing the judgment amount accordingly.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Argentine citizens, brought an action in Ontario against the State of Israel and its Canadian fiscal agent, seeking to recover proceeds from two bonds issued by Israel in the name of their great-uncle's estate.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Israel was the more appropriate forum.

The court granted the motion, finding that the presumptive connecting factors to Ontario were weak and rebutted, as the core of the dispute involved contracts formed and torts allegedly committed outside of Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it because Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum based on the location of witnesses, applicable law, and enforcement considerations.