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.

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 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.