Obaidul Hoque

The moving party (husband) sought to set aside consent orders regarding the validity of a 2017 Bangladeshi divorce, arguing his consent was vitiated by the responding party's (wife's) misrepresentation that she had not remarried.

The court set aside the consent orders, finding the wife had misrepresented her marital status.

Upon reviewing the evidence de novo, the court found that the 2017 Bangladeshi divorce was valid, not obtained by fraud, and should be recognized in Canada.

Consequently, the wife's claims for spousal support were dismissed, and her claim for equalization of net family property was barred by the limitation period.

The applicant vendor sought a declaration that the respondent purchasers repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home, and that the vendor was entitled to resell the property.

The purchasers brought a counter-application seeking specific performance or damages, alleging the vendor breached the agreement by unilaterally setting closing dates contrary to the Tarion Addendum.

The court found that the vendor properly extended the closing dates due to unavoidable delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, in compliance with the Tarion Addendum.

The purchasers failed to close on the agreed date, entitling the vendor to terminate the agreement.

The court granted the vendor's application to remarket the property and dismissed the purchasers' counter-application, adjourning the issue of deposit forfeiture to a summary hearing on damages.

The respondent brought a motion within a family law proceeding seeking a declaration that the applicant had married a third party in Bangladesh in May 2020, which would impact her claims for spousal support and equalization.

The applicant denied the marriage and alleged the respondent was orchestrating a massive fraudulent conspiracy involving forged documents and perjured testimony.

After a detailed assessment of the evidence, including testimony from third-party affiants, hospital records, and handwritten letters, the court rejected the applicant's fraud allegations as baseless and found that she had indeed married the third party on May 24, 2020.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential townhome.

The defendant failed to file responding materials and his request for an adjournment was denied as a delay tactic.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the balance due on closing.

Summary judgment was granted, allowing the plaintiff to retain the deposit and awarding damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from the withdrawal of the applicant's counsel, Mr. Singha, following serious allegations by the respondent that counsel was aware of an alleged false marriage involving the applicant.

The court accepted counsel's categorical denial, noting his honourable decision to withdraw from the litigation.

The judge concluded that further inquiry into the allegations against counsel would be unproductive and costly, and closed the matter.

Directions were provided for the orderly transfer of the file to new counsel.

This is an appeal from a judgment ordering the sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The Court of Appeal addressed a preliminary jurisdictional issue, noting that section 7 of the Partition Act stipulates appeals from orders made under the Act lie to the Divisional Court.

Despite the appellants' argument that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction due to intertwined issues, and the respondents' lack of objection, the court held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement.

The Court found the judgment squarely fell under the Partition Act, and therefore, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was quashed, and the appellants were ordered to pay costs.

This appeal concerned a failed condominium purchase where the central issue was the vendor's compliance with the Tarion Warranty Corporation Addendum, specifically regarding the delivery of an occupancy permit or confirmation of occupancy conditions.

The application judge found that no occupancy permit was required and that a letter from the builder was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal found a palpable and overriding error in the application judge's finding that the letter was *delivered* as required by the Addendum.

The evidence showed the letter was merely available for pick-up, not delivered.

The Court allowed the appeal, declared the vendor in breach of the agreement of purchase and sale, and ordered a reference to determine damages, along with costs to the appellants.

The added defendants (purchasers) moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff, to lift a stay on a writ of possession, and for the return of their purchase funds after a failed real estate closing.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPL and that the equities favoured the purchasers.

The court discharged the CPL, lifted the stay on the writ of possession, and ordered the vendors' solicitor to immediately return the purchase funds to the purchasers, as the vendors failed to provide vacant possession and clear title on closing.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a condominium unit they had agreed to purchase from the defendants.

The plaintiffs failed to close on the scheduled closing date due to delays in obtaining title insurance and financing caused by a zoning restriction on the property.

The defendants refused to extend the closing date and treated the agreement as at an end.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue for specific performance because the plaintiffs had waived the relevant conditions and the defendants were entitled to rely on the 'time is of the essence' clause.

The court also found that the equities did not favour granting a CPL.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a breach of contract action.

The plaintiff had taken active steps to obtain the default judgment without notice to the defendant, despite being contacted by the defendant's counsel who requested consent to file a statement of defence.

Applying the five-factor test from Intact Insurance Co. v. Kisel, the court found that the defendant moved promptly, had an arguable defence on the merits, and that the plaintiff's conduct in obtaining the judgment was evasive.

The court granted the motion, setting aside the noting in default, the default judgment, and the associated writ of seizure and sale.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a lower court order.

The motion was brought six days after the deadline.

The court applied the four-factor test for granting an extension of time: intention to appeal within the period, reasonable explanation for delay, arguable merits, and lack of prejudice to the responding parties.

The court found that the moving parties had a strong contemplation of appeal, a short and reasonable delay, and arguable issues regarding beneficial interests in the property.

No prejudice was found as the original order for sale was not automatically stayed.

The extension was granted on strict terms, including deadlines for filing and perfecting the appeal, and expedited hearing.

Despite granting the extension, the court awarded costs to the responding parties due to deficiencies in the moving parties' motion materials.

This decision concerns the award of costs following a successful application for specific performance of a real estate transaction.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $108,000.

The respondents argued the costs were excessive and that they lacked the means to pay.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct throughout the litigation warranted such a sanction.

The judge cited the respondents' actions in raising baseless issues, causing delay and friction, the asymmetrical importance of the issues to the parties, and the advancement of unproved allegations of dishonesty as key factors justifying the award.

The appellants brought a motion to stay a judgment granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for their commercial property.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay: serious question, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

The court found the serious question threshold was met, acknowledged the irreparable harm to the appellants' business, and determined the balance of convenience favoured the appellants if the appeal was expedited.

The motion for a stay was granted, contingent on an expedited appeal schedule, and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property needed for a land assembly development.

The respondents repudiated the agreement, arguing that the wife was coerced into signing and did not sign all portions of the document.

The court found that a binding agreement was formed, rejecting the coercion claims as unsupported and finding the signatures sufficient.

The court granted specific performance, holding that the property was unique to the applicant's development plans and damages would be inadequate.

The applicant's application for the return of tools and equipment was dismissed.

The parties were unable to agree on costs, and the respondent sought $8,768.80 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful and entitled to costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amount to reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, fixing costs at $7,000 payable by the applicant.

The applicant, a construction company, brought an urgent application for the return of tools and equipment from the respondent's property, a declaration that the construction contract was void, and damages.

The court dismissed the request for the return of property, finding the applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for ownership and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also determined the matter was not suitable to proceed as an application due to material facts in dispute and the existence of a parallel action commenced by the respondent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to the applicant to file a defence and counterclaim in the ongoing action.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application for compensation for flood damage to a leased condominium unit.

The Board found the tenants were not negligent when a bathroom faucet leaked and they could not locate the shut-off valve, and that their failure to maintain insurance did not render them liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's negligence analysis and noting the landlord failed to prove that the tenants' lack of insurance caused her loss.

The Tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., sought partial indemnity costs after successfully applying under s. 23 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, where the Landlord, Eli Messica, had unreasonably withheld consent to a lease assignment.

The Tenant requested $18,417.86, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Landlord opposed, arguing the Tenant's lawyer's time was excessive and proposing a reduced award of $10,356.45.

The court found the Tenant's lawyer's hourly rate modest and the time expended reasonable for an important matter, ultimately awarding the Tenant the full requested costs.

The tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., applied for a court order determining that the landlord, Eli Messica, unreasonably withheld consent to assign a commercial lease to Moksha Enterprise Ltd. The landlord initially expressed satisfaction with the proposed assignee but later rescinded consent, citing concerns that the assignee might seek to renegotiate rent and that the tenant was in default of lease renewal agreement improvements.

The court found that the landlord's primary stated reason for refusal (assignee seeking rent renegotiation) dissipated after the assignee confirmed its intent to abide by the lease terms.

The court also determined that the landlord's subsequent reliance on the tenant's alleged defaults was an after-the-fact justification and not the genuine reason for refusal at the time.

The application was granted, concluding that the landlord's refusal was unreasonable.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application and the granting of the respondent's counter-application, the court determined costs.

The applicant argued that proposed Minutes of Settlement sent to the respondent constituted a Rule 49 offer.

The court found that the email attaching the Minutes explicitly stated counsel did not have instructions, and therefore it was not a valid Rule 49 offer.

The successful respondent was awarded costs of $10,509.75 on a partial indemnity basis.