Pathik Bipinchandra Baxi

The appellants, a wife and a family company, appealed a partial determination of competing applications regarding the company's share structure and the beneficial ownership of a property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider relevant evidence, including the company accountant's testimony regarding the share structure, and by failing to address the presumption of resulting trust regarding the property.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a rehearing before a different judge.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order denying an adjournment of a trial.

At the appeal hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment because they had only ordered the trial transcripts that morning.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment request due to the unexplained delay and prejudice to the respondent.

The court then dismissed the appeal entirely, finding that the appellant failed to perfect the appeal or provide the necessary transcripts and lower court reasons required to determine the issue.

This case involved a family dispute over a corporation and real estate.

The applicants sought validation of a shareholder meeting and a declaration of beneficial ownership of a property.

The respondents cross-applied, disputing the applicants' shareholder status.

The court found in favour of the applicants, confirming their shareholder status, validating the meeting, and declaring them beneficial owners of the property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to retain in trust the sale proceeds of real estate properties sold under power of sale by non-parties Surendra Walia and MGP Capital Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that the mortgages held by Walia and MGP were not legitimate and were part of a scheme by the defendant Gurmeet Singh to defraud creditors.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim that the mortgages were illegitimate.

The court affirmed that Mareva injunctions do not create proprietary interests and that secured creditors take priority over unsecured creditors.

Walia was permitted to disburse the sale proceeds in the usual course, while previously held funds ($400,000) remained in trust pending further order.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision that struck out a default judgment and statement of claim as an abuse of process, found overpayment on a mortgage due to fraud, and awarded damages.

The trial judge's decision relied in part on prior Financial Services Tribunal findings of fraudulent conduct by the appellant mortgage broker.

The appellants challenged the striking out of the judgment/claim, the trial judge's credibility findings, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings, noting that the appellants' counsel had consented to the judge hearing the case despite prior dealings, and found no evidence of bias.

The defendants brought a motion requiring the self-represented plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff resides in China, has no assets in Ontario, and has over $1,000,000 in unpaid judgments from other proceedings.

The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to pay $100,000 in installments.

The court also awarded costs thrown away to one defendant for a motion to strike necessitated by the plaintiff's delay in filing a Notice of Intention to Act in Person.

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The moving party, who had applied to register the trademark 'Bombay Frankies' for a planned franchise of Indian restaurants, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding parties from using the name 'Bombay Frankie' for their recently opened restaurants.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding trademark priority.

The court concluded the moving party would suffer irreparable harm through loss of first-mover advantage and goodwill, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving party.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages and indemnification arising from the purchase of a defective commercial truck.

The trial judge found that the appellants breached the contract by failing to provide a reasonably fit vehicle and subsequently failing to honour an agreement to exchange the truck.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on breach of contract and indemnification, finding no palpable and overriding error in the interpretation of the contract or the admission of parol evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the action against the individual appellants because there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil or find them personally liable for the corporation's breach of contract.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of approximately $37,000 granted in favour of the plaintiff for unpaid fuel invoices.

The defendants had mistakenly filed their statement of defence in the Small Claims Court and, upon discovering the error, learned that default judgment had already been entered.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court found that while the defendants delayed in obtaining necessary documents, they had demonstrated an intent to defend the action from the beginning and raised an arguable defence regarding miscalculated rebates.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, though existing writs of execution were ordered to remain in effect pending further order.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement.

The motion judge had found a binding agreement existed despite the absence of formally executed minutes of settlement and rejected the appellant's claim of no intent to be bound.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the communications objectively reflected an enforceable agreement not conditional on signed minutes, and no error in declining to exercise discretion to not enforce the settlement.

The plaintiffs and defendants swapped possession of their respective properties in 1991 without transferring title.

The plaintiffs obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board against the defendants for unpaid rent on one of the properties.

The defendants moved for an interlocutory injunction to stay the eviction order pending the resolution of the plaintiffs' action for title transfer and the defendants' counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the test for an injunction, as the plaintiffs had a strong case, the defendants did not adequately demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff subcontractor sought payment from the owner's holdback funds after the general contractor failed to pay for work on a restaurant construction project.

The court determined that the contract between the owner and general contractor was not a fixed-price contract but rather a costs-plus arrangement, meaning the owner's 10% holdback obligation was calculated based on the total actual costs incurred.

The court also found the owner was not liable for a further notice holdback because it did not receive written notice of the liens in the prescribed form.

Finally, the court interpreted trust agreements between the owner and other subcontractors who had discharged their liens, awarding them payments from the trust funds based on the specific terms of their respective agreements.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs, which were reduced to reflect a lack of success on a residential tenancy issue.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 for the appeal and $15,000 for the application, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant landlord and respondent tenants entered into a residential occupancy agreement and an option to purchase agreement.

The respondent attempted to exercise the option to purchase, but the notice was late and did not include the required deposit.

The parties subsequently entered into a new agreement of purchase and sale at a higher price, which the respondent failed to close.

The application judge found the respondent had substantially complied with the option agreement and dismissed the landlord's application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the option agreement required strict compliance due to 'time is of the essence' and non-waiver clauses.

The Court ordered the forfeiture of the majority of the deposit but declined to issue a writ of possession, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the residential tenancy.

The applicant brought an application to remove a Caution registered on the title of his property by his sister, the respondent, which delayed the closing of the property's sale.

The respondent claimed an unregistered interest based on an alleged loan, but withdrew the Caution the day before the hearing.

The court found the respondent had no reasonable cause to register the Caution, as a loan does not constitute an interest in land under the Land Titles Act.

The applicant was awarded $21,251.01 in damages for expenses incurred during the two-month closing delay, plus $30,000 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and brinksmanship.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The respondents sought $16,535.61 on a partial indemnity basis, arguing costs were increased by the appellant's reply factum.

The appellant argued for $5,000.

The Court of Appeal found the respondents' claim excessive as the issues were familiar and not novel, fixing costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion seeking to examine the defendants' former lawyers and for a declaration that solicitor-client privilege had been waived.

The defendants, mortgagors, alleged they did not understand various mortgage-related documents they signed, claiming non est factum and forgery, thereby putting the legal advice received from their former counsel into issue.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the defendants' assertions directly challenged the legal advice and their contemporaneous understanding of the documents, thus implicitly waiving solicitor-client privilege.

The former lawyers were ordered to attend examinations, and conditional solicitor and client costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellants and respondent entered into agreements of purchase and sale for a property to be severed.

The agreements required a second deposit upon the city's approval of the severance.

The appellants obtained approval but withheld this information from the respondent for over six months.

Upon finally informing the respondent, the appellants demanded immediate payment of the second deposit and subsequently terminated the agreements when the respondent, who was out of the country, requested an extension.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the appellants acted unreasonably and breached the duty of good faith performance by imposing an arbitrary and impossible deadline.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award that found him liable to the respondent unions for damages.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness because he did not receive actual notice of the arbitration hearing, and that the award was unreasonable due to his prior bankruptcy and the damages assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that proper notice was given in accordance with the collective agreement and registered business addresses.

The court also held that the bankruptcy issue was not before the arbitrator and the damages assessment was reasonable.

Furthermore, the application was dismissed on the basis of excessive and unexplained delay.