Muhammad Zafar

This summary trial decision concerns a failed real estate transaction.

The court found that the defendant, Qura Tul Ain, breached a binding agreement to purchase the plaintiff Ammar Ahmad’s home.

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments and crossclaim against her real estate brokerage, finding no evidence of bad faith, concealment, or breach of fiduciary duty.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the difference in sale price, carrying costs, repairs, legal fees, and rental costs, but not for moving expenses or real estate commission.

The total damages awarded were $386,460.60.

The moving parties (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) for two investment properties, alleging fraud by the responding parties.

The responding party opposed, raising issues with the evidentiary basis of the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties established a triable claim to an interest in the properties, the equities did not favour granting a CPL.

The properties were acquired as investments, not for unique use, and damages would be a satisfactory remedy, as a CPL is not intended to secure a claim for damages.

The court also commented on the inappropriate use of inflammatory language in affidavits.

The plaintiffs, Donna and Ronald Zoleta, sought summary judgment against the purchaser, Lovesikander Singh, and the real estate agent, RE/MAX Twin City Realty Inc., for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) of a property.

Singh failed to close the transaction after the real estate market declined and an appraisal showed a significantly lower property value, demanding a large abatement.

The plaintiffs relisted the property "pre-emptively" but maintained their intent to close the original deal.

Singh argued the relisting repudiated the contract and prevented him from securing financing, and also alleged conspiracy between the plaintiffs and RE/MAX.

The court found that Singh repudiated the APS by demanding an abatement, and the plaintiffs did not accept this repudiation.

The court further found that the plaintiffs' relisting of the property did not constitute repudiation, as they provided notice and continued to affirm the agreement.

Singh also failed to accept any alleged repudiation by the plaintiffs in a timely manner, instead affirming the contract through requests for extension.

The court dismissed Singh's conspiracy claims due to lack of evidence and damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for damages, and Singh's crossclaim and counterclaim were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale, relying on an arbitration clause in the Tarion Addendum.

The court found that while the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by attorning to the court's jurisdiction and actively participating in the litigation for over 16 months before bringing the motion.

The motion to stay was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs.

The plaintiff brought an action for fraud and misappropriation against a former employee and the operators of a gas station, alleging a scheme to overcharge for fuel.

Both parties brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The court ordered both parties to answer specific questions, directed the defendant to re-attend for a brief further examination, and denied the defendants' request to examine a second representative of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded $3,500 in costs.

The applicant brought an application claiming that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) seized funds from her father's accounts that rightfully belonged to her from an inheritance in Nigeria.

The father supported the application, contradicting his own previous sworn evidence that the funds were his own inheritance.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the father held the funds in trust for the applicant or that any identifiable funds belonging to the applicant were seized by the CRA.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 to the CRA, payable jointly and severally by the applicant and her father due to their complicity in bringing the misconceived application.

The respondent husband brought a motion for the interim sale of the matrimonial home, citing financial hardship due to reduced income as a taxi driver during the pandemic.

The applicant wife, who had interim exclusive possession of the home and resided there with their three children, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the husband's financial hardship was not sufficiently compelling to justify a forced sale at the interim stage, especially given the vulnerability of the wife and children and the uncertainty surrounding the husband's financial evidence.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of malicious prosecution, defamation, and fraud/theft relating to a saving circle and employment termination.

The defendants also sought default judgement on their counterclaim for theft.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for summary judgement.

The court granted partial summary judgement dismissing the malicious prosecution and defamation claims, finding no evidence that the police lacked independent discretion in laying charges or that defamatory statements were made to third parties.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial for the saving circle and employment monies claims due to credibility issues.

The court also set aside the noting of default on the counterclaim to avoid inconsistent findings at trial.

The respondent father brought a motion to contest the Ontario court's jurisdiction over the applicant mother's claims for custody and child support, arguing the child was habitually resident in Iraq.

The father had allegedly abducted the child during a vacation to the Middle East and failed to attend the case conference as ordered.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence and found the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The father's motion was dismissed, his pleadings were struck for failing to obey court orders, and the mother was granted temporary custody and leave to proceed to an uncontested hearing.

Third World Broadcasting Inc. (Plaintiff) sued Pakistan International Airlines (Defendant) for breach of contract or quantum meruit, seeking payment for advertising services provided from 2013-2016 after their last written contract expired in 2012.

PIA brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was without merit.

The court granted PIA's motion, finding no contract existed after 2012 and that Third World failed to prove its claim in contract or quantum meruit, as the services were provided gratuitously and speculatively, not at PIA's request or with its acquiescence.

PIA's counterclaim for defamation was abandoned and dismissed without costs.

DEI Films Ltd. sued Rakesh Tiwari and 3885275 Canada Inc. for defamation.

The defendants successfully brought anti-SLAPP motions, dismissing DEI Films' action.

This decision addresses the defendants' requests for full indemnity costs.

The court granted full indemnity costs to both defendants against DEI Films Ltd., finding no merit in DEI Films' arguments for reduced or no costs.

The court declined to hold non-parties Brij Mohan Trikah and Sital Panesar jointly and severally liable for costs, as the defamation claim was primarily by the corporate entity and had little to do with their personal reputations.

DEI Films Ltd. sued Rakesh Tiwari and 3885275 Canada Inc. for defamation, claiming $1.5 million, arising from a radio broadcast discussing a proposed boycott of a concert.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the defendants' motions, finding that the broadcast related to a matter of public interest.

DEI Films failed to demonstrate that its action had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defense (such as no defamatory statement, justification, or fair comment), or that the harm suffered was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the return of a child to the United Arab Emirates on the basis that the applicant father had wrongfully abducted the child from the U.A.E. and that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The father had taken the child to Canada on August 16, 2016, following a family dispute.

The mother obtained a custody order in the U.A.E. on January 9, 2017, providing her with custody and ordering the child's return.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in the U.A.E. at the time of removal, that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, and that no exception applied.

The court recognized the U.A.E. order and directed the immediate return of the child to the mother.

The applicant, Guelph Taxi Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restore its accessible taxi cab service license, which had been revoked by the Guelph Chief of Police and upheld by the Guelph Police Services Board.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper undertaking as to damages, did not establish irreparable harm that could not be quantified or compensated by damages, and that the balance of convenience favored not granting the injunction, partly due to the applicant's delay and history of by-law infractions.