Omer S. Chaudhry

The appellants challenged the trial judge's finding that the parties entered into an oral partnership agreement to deliver milk through a numbered company, and disputed the resulting damages award under the OBCA oppression remedy, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the partnership or credibility assessments, and upheld the prejudgment interest calculation as a reasonable exercise of discretion under s. 130(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The allegation of judicial bias was dismissed for failing to meet the high threshold to displace the presumption of impartiality.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, except that further submissions were required on whether income taxes should have been deducted from certain amounts included in the damages calculation.

This decision concerns a motion to change parenting arrangements and child support for a seven-year-old child with special needs.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the child's autism diagnosis and a shift in primary residence to the father after the mother left for India.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, with structured parenting time for the mother.

The court also varied travel and child support provisions, imputing income to the mother based on gifts and her earning capacity.

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a contested relocation and parenting dispute involving an 8-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child to Wisconsin, while the father opposed the move and sought joint or parallel decision-making responsibility.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, including family violence considerations, the parties’ parenting abilities, and the impact of relocation.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver and granted her sole decision-making responsibility, permitting relocation with a detailed parenting time plan for the father.

The father’s income was imputed at $88,800 for child support purposes due to under-employment and lack of financial disclosure.

The mother’s spousal support claim was withdrawn if relocation was permitted.

The applicant husband and respondent brother brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent wife's property claims, including equalization and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the wife lacked standing to assert an unjust enrichment claim against the brother on behalf of the husband, dismissing that specific claim.

However, the court dismissed the remainder of the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the wife's equalization and personal unjust enrichment claims due to inconsistent evidence regarding the husband's corporate and property interests.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that the lease agreement with the respondent tenant was a commercial lease subject to the Commercial Tenancies Act, despite being executed on a standard residential lease form.

The court applied the predominant purpose test, finding that the tenant used the property primarily for its telecommunications construction business, maintained heavy equipment on site, and used the house as a corporate office.

The court held that the lease was commercial in nature and granted the declaratory relief.

The husband brought an urgent motion concerning the sale of the matrimonial home, with the wife filing a cross-motion addressing similar issues and her financial security.

The court ordered that a line of credit secured against the home be paid from the gross sale proceeds, and the remaining net proceeds be disbursed to the wife.

This decision was based on the husband's history of non-compliance with support orders, questionable financial conduct, and substantial support arrears, prioritizing the wife's financial stability.

The respondent (husband) brought an urgent motion seeking leave to address the upcoming sale of the parties' matrimonial home, scheduled for May 1, 2020, amidst the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

Despite the husband's non-compliance with page limits for urgent motion materials, the court found the relief requested met the urgency requirements set out in the Chief Justice's Notice.

The court granted the urgent motion request and issued detailed procedural directions for a teleconference motion, including timelines for material delivery, page limits, and submission times, specifically restricting the motion to the matrimonial home sale issue.

This costs endorsement followed a motion concerning the sale of a jointly owned investment property.

Both parties sought costs, with the applicant seeking partial indemnity costs and the respondent seeking substantial or partial indemnity costs.

The court found that success on the underlying motion was mixed, although the applicant was more successful regarding property repairs.

The respondent's offers to settle did not comply with Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as they were delivered too late.

Given the mixed success and non-compliant offers, the court determined it was not appropriate to make any costs order.

The applicants sought a declaration that they were entitled to $400,000 in deposits from a failed real estate transaction after the respondent purchaser repeatedly failed to close and sought multiple adjournments.

The court denied the respondent's last-minute adjournment request, found the respondent in breach of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and declared the applicants entitled to the full deposit amount, noting it was not disproportionate or unconscionable given the circumstances and extensions granted.

The respondent moved to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that had been granted ex parte to the applicants concerning a property.

The court granted the motion, discharging the CPL and awarding costs to the respondent.

The reasons included the applicants' lack of full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, failure to establish the property's uniqueness, significant unexplained delay in seeking the CPL, and the prejudice to a bona fide third-party purchaser.

The court found the applicants' claim for damages would remain, and the balance of harm favored vacating the CPL.

The plaintiff moved for the appointment of an inspector over 2390247 Ontario Inc. c.o.b.

Alyousef Brother’s, alleging he was a beneficial shareholder and that the business was conducted oppressively.

The defendants disputed his shareholder status and argued other remedies should be exhausted.

The court found a prima facie case that the plaintiff was a beneficial shareholder, supported by documentary evidence including emails and text messages demonstrating his involvement in the company's formation and contract negotiations.

Given the defendants' lack of cooperation in providing financial information, the court determined that an investigation was appropriate.

The motion was granted, and an inspector was appointed with specific powers and reporting obligations to investigate the company's financial affairs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs.

The defendant sought costs arising from a case conference made necessary after the parties failed to comply with a court-ordered timetable for advancing the litigation.

The plaintiff had failed to serve and file an amended statement of claim within the required time, resulting in delays, unnecessary correspondence between counsel, and the cancellation of a scheduled pre-trial conference.

The court found the delay primarily attributable to the plaintiff and his counsel, and also criticized uncivil communications between counsel which contributed to wasted steps and increased costs.

The court held the defendant was entitled to wasted costs incurred due to the plaintiff’s non-compliance with the timetable.

The court fixed costs at $4,909.85 and directed further steps to determine whether some or all of those costs should be paid personally by the plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 57.07.