Omer S. Chaudhry

In a third addendum and costs decision, the Court of Appeal ordered that an unpaid $4,000 costs award be deducted from the damages payable to the respondent.

The court accepted the appellants' damages recalculation, correcting a minor addition error to fix the net profit at $939,898.64, with 50% amounting to $469,949.32.

As the results of the appeal were mixed, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment and possession of a mortgaged property following the defendant's default.

The defendant did not dispute the default or the amount owed but argued that summary judgment should not be granted because he had a speculative plan to cure the arrears using funds from a mortgage broker's other pending transactions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant's plan was speculative, did not address property tax arrears, and the defendant had not properly pursued relief under section 23 of the Mortgages Act.

The motion for summary judgment and possession was granted.

In a second addendum to an appeal decision regarding a partnership dispute, the court considered the appellants' payment of income taxes for a corporation.

Based on affidavit evidence and notices of assessment confirming a remittance of $8,348.36 to the Canada Revenue Agency, the court ordered that this amount be deducted from the corporation's net income figure to arrive at an after-tax income figure for the purpose of recalculating the damages owing to the respondent.

In an addendum to its earlier reasons dismissing the appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed the calculation of partnership net profits for the purpose of determining the respondent's damages.

The appellants argued that notional income taxes should be deducted from amounts the trial judge ordered included in corporate income, such as diverted wages and personal expenses.

The Court rejected this argument, finding no evidence that taxes were paid on the diverted funds.

However, the Court ordered the appellants to provide Canada Revenue Agency documentation to prove actual income taxes remitted by one of the corporate defendants, which would be deducted from its net income if substantiated.

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 plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings, which was settled by the defendant shortly after the motion materials were served.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought over $26,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for $2,000 to $3,000.

The court found the plaintiff's costs entirely disproportionate, noting the plaintiff failed to serve a refusals chart until 11 months after the notice of motion and prepared full motion materials despite the defendant's cooperative stance.

The court fixed costs at $5,489.

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 appellants succeeded on a procedural ground in their appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment regarding unpaid wages.

They sought partial indemnity costs of $12,389.52.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding that the appellants' conduct at trial was frivolous, vexatious, and designed to obstruct the respondent's rightful claim for wages.

The court held that the trial and appeal must be considered as one course of litigation, and the appellants' bad faith conduct justified depriving them of their costs despite their success on appeal.

The plaintiff successfully sued the corporate and personal defendants in Small Claims Court for unpaid wages.

At the outset of the trial, the trial judge excluded one of the personal defendants from the courtroom, despite defendants' counsel stating she was essential to instruct him.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that excluding the instructing witness contravened Rule 52.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and constituted an error of law.

Although the plaintiff had a strong case, the exclusion created an appearance of unfairness amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

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.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the parties' 13-year-old son to move with her and his younger sisters to Ajax.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing the son should remain in Mississauga where he attends school and plays high-level soccer.

The court conducted a confidential interview with the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court determined that the son should remain in Mississauga on an interim basis to minimize disruption to his schooling and soccer routines, but ordered a robust access schedule to ensure he maintains contact with his mother and sisters.

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 appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

He argued the trial judge erred by imputing income based on his rental income without deducting the expenses incurred to earn that income, and by failing to apply the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's failure to address the rental expenses contained in the appellant's tax returns constituted a significant misapprehension of evidence and an error in principle.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the appellant's income, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

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.