Murad Ali Khan

The defendants brought a motion originally seeking mandatory injunctive relief in relation to the plaintiff's sale of their property, which narrowed to a request for disclosure of the property appraisal.

The court acknowledged that while the plaintiff has a legal duty to act in good faith and obtain fair market value on the sale, there is no legal obligation to disclose the appraisal to the mortgagors.

The court found that creating such an obligation would constitute new law with broader policy implications that could not be properly addressed on a brief motion.

The motion was dismissed with costs on a substantial indemnity basis payable within 120 days, extended from the usual 30 days due to the defendants' financial circumstances.

The plaintiff, Business Development Bank of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor, Kuruppu Appuham Jayatissa, seeking recovery of outstanding loan amounts and a declaration of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendant resisted the motion, arguing that she was deceived by a third party to whom she transferred the funds for real estate investments, and that a full trial was required.

The court found that the third-party dispute did not affect the defendant's liability under her personal guarantee and that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for $97,158.46 and declared that the defendant had fraudulently misrepresented the purpose of the loan.

This decision addresses motions by plaintiffs (M.A. and C.S. et al.) to lift stays of proceedings against Christine Ramgulam-Rafiq (under a consumer proposal) and Kishen Vicky Doon (in bankruptcy) pursuant to section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The underlying civil actions seek damages for torts including voyeurism, negligence, and intrusion upon seclusion, stemming from incidents at a spa.

The court considered whether the debtors were necessary parties for complete adjudication, if the BIA's summary claim procedure was inappropriate for complex tort claims, and if the debts would survive discharge under section 178(1) of the BIA.

The court found that both debtors were necessary parties and that the summary procedure was unsuitable.

For Mr. Doon, the claims were found to potentially fall under section 178(1)(a.1)(i) (bodily harm intentionally inflicted) and section 178(1)(e) (false pretenses) due to his guilty plea to voyeurism.

For Ms. Ramgulam-Rafiq, the court found little prospect of success for claims under section 178(1) as the allegations were primarily negligence-based, not intentional torts, and she denied knowledge.

Despite the latter, the court granted the motions to lift the stays against both debtors, concluding there were sound reasons and material prejudice to the plaintiffs if the stays continued.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action.

The appellants had failed to deliver a statement of defence for over a year and offered no explanation for their delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in refusing to lift the default given the lack of evidence.

The court also noted the appellants improperly attempted to adduce fresh evidence without leave.

Following the dismissal of the father's motion to change parenting terms, the mother sought costs of $4,000 and an order requiring the father to obtain leave before bringing future motions.

The court awarded the mother $4,000 in costs, payable at $200 per month due to the father's limited means.

The court declined to order that the father requires leave for future motions, finding that his two unsuccessful motions did not constitute an abuse of process or delay.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondents relief for breach of a real estate purchase agreement.

The appellants had breached an agreement to purchase property at 800 Sales Court, Milton, Ontario, and their deposit was forfeited.

The appellants argued on appeal that the respondents failed to mitigate their loss by refusing the appellants' offer to complete the transaction at a reduced price.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents had no obligation to mitigate prior to the appellants' breach and were not required to give the appellants an opportunity to match a third-party offer after the property was re-listed.

Following an order granting the applicants vacant possession of a commercial property, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent tenant had refused to vacate despite a valid early termination notice, forcing expedited proceedings.

The court rejected the respondent's reliance on the outdated pre-2005 costs grid, applying the Court of Appeal's guidance that partial indemnity rates should reflect 55-60% of reasonable actual rates.

Costs were awarded to the applicants in the requested amount of $31,841 on a partial indemnity basis.