Mukesh Bhardwaj

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for a defaulted commercial loan and against the individual defendants on their personal guarantees.

The defendants admitted the default but argued that their landlord caused the business failure by locking them out, and requested a stay of enforcement to pursue a third-party claim against the landlord.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the debt was admitted and the landlord's actions were not the bank's fault.

The court declined to stay enforcement, holding that it would be inequitable to delay the bank's recovery based on an unrelated third-party dispute.

The applicant sought a declaration that her religious marriage (nikkah) to the respondent was a valid civil marriage under s. 31 of the Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

M.3, to enable claims for equalization of net family property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the parties deliberately chose not to comply with the civil marriage requirements and were aware they were not legally married, thus failing the "intention to be in compliance with this Act" criterion of s. 31.

The defendant, Anoop Kumar Ubbu, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The trial focused on whether the complainant, JY, consented to sexual activity and whether the defendant had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court found JY to be a credible witness who did not consent to any sexual activity with the defendant or other individuals.

The defendant's claim of honest but mistaken belief in consent was rejected due to his failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The court found the defendant guilty of sexual assault.

The offender, a 25-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a dangerous weapon after stabbing a victim outside a nightclub.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a sentence of time served based on pre-trial custody and strict house arrest conditions.

The court applied the restraint principle for young first offenders and sentenced the offender to 9 months' imprisonment concurrent with 6 months for the weapons offence, followed by two years' probation.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a second mortgage on a residential property.

The mortgagor was noted in default, and the guarantor, who was self-represented, admitted the amount owing in her statement of defence.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, granted judgment for the outstanding principal, interest, and fees totaling $492,013.20, and ordered the defendants to deliver possession of the property.

The court delayed the issuance of the judgment to allow the guarantor time to arrange mortgage refinancing.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs arising from a prior motion.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs based on her success, while the Respondent argued against any costs order, citing alleged improper conduct by the Applicant.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success, the acrimonious nature of the parties' interactions, and their limited means during the pandemic, in accordance with Family Law Rule 24.

The Applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and requested a preliminary issue hearing to dismiss the application because the applicant failed to submit a completed Disability Certificate (OCF-3) as required by section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that the insurer should have taken a holistic approach and obtained the necessary information from his treating practitioners using signed authorizations.

The Tribunal held that section 36 places the onus on the applicant to submit a completed OCF-3 filled out by a health practitioner before entitlement to the benefit begins.

As the applicant had not submitted a completed OCF-3, the application was dismissed.

The defendant, Kunal Bulland, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

The court found that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol at the time of the collision, based on expert toxicological evidence, physical indicia of impairment, and his driving conduct.

The court also determined that this impairment was a significant contributing cause of the victim's severe injuries.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of the charge.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of legal costs following motions concerning the sale of a matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, and child support.

The court found that neither party was predominantly successful on the main issues, as many determinations were deferred pending further disclosure, valuations, and the resolution of claims by third parties.

While the respondent obtained a temporary child support order, the amount was based on the applicant's reported income, which was subject to recalculation.

Given the divided success and the ongoing nature of the substantive issues, the court reserved the decision on costs to the trial judge or a judge presiding over a final determination of the outstanding matters.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, false pretences, and possession of property obtained by crime after depositing over $141,000 in fraudulent cheques into a commercial bank account.

The court found the accused acted with wilful blindness and dissipated the funds rapidly.

After weighing mitigating factors, including the accused's lack of a prior record, against aggravating factors such as the sophistication of the scheme and the amount of loss, the court sentenced the accused to 15 months' imprisonment, followed by two years of probation, and issued a DNA order.

The accused was charged after opening a business account in the name of a legitimate investment company and depositing two misdirected cheques totalling more than $141,000.

He claimed he believed the funds were repayment of a debt orchestrated by another individual, but the court rejected that evidence as inconsistent with the bank records, his representations to bank employees, and his rapid dissipation of the funds through multiple branch transactions.

Applying the law of fraud and the doctrine of wilful blindness, the court found that the accused intentionally misled the bank to gain access to stolen funds, or alternatively deliberately avoided confirming what he strongly suspected.

The court entered convictions on all counts.

The applicant sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders regarding retroactive child support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion for leave regarding child support, finding no conflicting authority or reason to doubt the order's correctness.

However, the court granted leave to appeal regarding the matrimonial home, finding that the motion judge's failure to adjudicate the issue after the applicant amended his pleadings to include the Partition Act constituted an error of law open to serious debate.

The applicant sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders regarding retroactive child support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court denied leave to appeal the child support order, finding no conflicting authority or reason to doubt its correctness.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the motion judge's failure to adjudicate the motion to list the matrimonial home for sale after the applicant amended his pleadings to rely on the Partition Act.

The court held that the failure to determine the issue constituted an error of law, making the correctness of the decision open to serious debate.

The applicant husband sought an immediate sale of the matrimonial home, arguing his current accommodation was inadequate and his equity was being eroded.

The respondent wife opposed the sale, seeking to buy out the husband's interest after determination of equalization and child support.

The court found the motion for immediate sale premature, as the applicant had not pleaded the Partition Act, which is the primary basis for such an order outside specific Family Law Act circumstances.

The court also considered the children's best interests and the financial positions of the spouses, noting significant financial disclosure issues and conflicting property valuations.

The motion was adjourned, with orders for the applicant to amend pleadings, for both parties to provide full financial disclosure, for a joint property valuation, and for the applicant to pay temporary and retroactive child support.

Following a family law trial where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The applicant husband claimed success on a proprietary interest issue regarding the matrimonial home, while the respondent wife claimed success on custody, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found that the husband's failure to amend his pleadings until trial undermined his costs claim, and his settlement offer was unclear and did not resemble the final result.

Given the divided success at trial, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The offenders were found guilty of conspiracy to import 112 kg of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The cocaine was hidden in wooden pallets in a sea container shipped from Guyana.

The court found both offenders were principal participants in a sophisticated importation scheme.

Buttazzoni, who had a prior drug conviction in the US and made threats of violence, was sentenced to 17 years.

Ramlall, a first-time offender who received the pallets at his home, was sentenced to 15 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The accused were tried before a judge alone on charges arising from a large-scale cocaine importation scheme involving approximately 112 kilograms of cocaine shipped from Guyana to Canada in a sea container.

The Crown alleged conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, relying on surveillance, intercepted communications, controlled delivery evidence, and admissions.

The court found that two of the accused knowingly participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine and later exercised possession of the drugs for trafficking purposes, based largely on circumstantial evidence and intercepted communications demonstrating knowledge, control, and shared financial interest in the shipment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence that any accused actually committed the offence of importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because their involvement occurred after the drugs entered Canada.

Two accused were acquitted entirely due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge and participation.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking interim child support and section 7 special expenses for two dependent children following the parties’ separation.

The parties disputed whether additional income should be imputed to the payor parent, including RRSP withdrawals and alleged overtime income.

The court declined to determine imputed income on the limited interim record, noting the issue was properly reserved for trial given the upcoming trial date.

Interim support was instead based on the payor parent’s acknowledged 2014 income.

The court ordered monthly child support and section 7 contributions effective August 1, 2015, without prejudice to retroactive adjustments at trial.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment maintaining the existing custody and access arrangements for the parties' children.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the best interests of the children required the arrangements to remain unchanged, noting the children were healthy and doing well in school.

The court commended the respondent mother for fostering the children's relationship with their father despite his significant failure to comply with support orders.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.