Paul B. Schabas

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the implementation of s. 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act, which requires the removal of certain protected bike lanes in Toronto.

The court found that the applicants met the test for an interlocutory injunction, including a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of inconvenience favouring the applicants.

The injunction was granted, suspending the operation of the provision until the court’s decision on the constitutional application.

The applicant, Hoshang Bakhshi, sought relief under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16, alleging oppressive conduct by the respondents.

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with a prior order to produce records and respond in a timely manner.

The court granted the application, awarding Bakhshi the return of his investment, a share of sale proceeds, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct to be covert and in bad faith.

This decision concerns a dispute arising from a series of real estate investments and construction projects between Darioush Nobahar (a builder) and Kambiz Heshmati (a real estate agent), along with their respective companies and associates.

The court addresses the parties' financial contributions, the breakdown of their business relationship, and the resulting claims and counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence.

The court finds that Nobahar abandoned the Deloraine project, dismisses his claims, and awards damages to the defendants on their counterclaim.

This decision concerns a dispute between two couples and their closely held corporations over the ownership and operation of "Tiki" boats in Wasaga Beach, Ontario.

The court found that no binding joint venture or operator agreement was reached, and that the only enforceable contract was the sale of the boats to the plaintiffs.

The defendants' unilateral actions with Transport Canada and defamatory statements on social media led to findings of breach of fiduciary duty and defamation, resulting in damages and punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a townhouse.

The defendants failed to make required payments, and the plaintiffs purported to terminate the APS but did not communicate this clearly.

The plaintiffs later resold the property, and the defendants claimed breach and sought return of their deposits.

The court found that the APS was not properly terminated by the plaintiffs, and that by reselling the property, the plaintiffs themselves breached the APS.

The defendants were entitled to the return of their deposits with interest.

The plaintiff, Allan Mann, sued his former criminal defence lawyers, Edward H. Royle and James Miglin, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related wrongs arising from their representation in his criminal proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as an abuse of process and for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that such a claim constitutes an improper collateral attack on the criminal conviction and sentence, which were never appealed.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

This is a trial ruling excluding proposed expert opinion evidence from a forensic accountant (Ivor Gottschalk) on quantification of lost rental revenue after a 2010 explosion and fire.

The court held the evidence failed the necessity requirement and the expert lacked independence and an investigative mindset; the gatekeeping cost-benefit analysis also favoured exclusion.

The ruling was made after a voir dire held Feb 19–20, 2025, and reasons were issued Feb 27, 2025.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of interlocutory relief to Parkland Corporation in a lease dispute.

The court awards partial indemnity costs to Parkland, finding the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision discusses the principles governing costs, including proportionality, misconduct, and the timing of costs awards.

The applicant, Mohammed Mazbah Uddin Bhuiyan, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after the respondent, Marissa Gonzales, refused to close a real estate transaction due to insufficient funds to discharge existing mortgages.

The court found that the applicant did not meet the low threshold for a CPL, as the unique features cited related to location rather than the property itself, and the rights of the mortgagee (MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc.)—which had already obtained judgment and a writ of possession—outweighed those of the applicant.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Community Trust Company, moved for summary judgment on a mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted judgment for the plaintiff, and ordered the defendants to deliver possession of the property.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Syed Bahauddin, was employed as a chef at the defendants’ restaurant for over 20 years before being dismissed without cause.

After settling a wrongful dismissal action, the defendants failed to pay the full judgment.

The plaintiff sought and was granted an order requiring the garnishee, 1436318 Ontario Ltd., to pay the outstanding amount.

The court found the mortgage between related parties to be valid and enforceable, rejected claims that it was a sham, and concluded that the equities favoured the plaintiff.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The respondent, Niman Mamo LLP, brought a motion on consent for a sealing order over all materials filed in the court file, citing solicitor-client privilege and ongoing litigation.

The court found that the materials filed did not meet the requirements for a sealing order as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.

The court emphasized the presumption of openness in court proceedings and the need for strong, evidence-based grounds to override this principle.

The motion was dismissed.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim was found to be very poorly pleaded and would require amendment to allow a response.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous or vexatious.

The registrar was directed to give notice to the plaintiff that the court is considering dismissal, to stay the plaintiff’s actions pending the outcome of the written hearing, and to limit further filings to the plaintiff’s written submissions.

The endorsement sets out procedural steps for both the registrar and the parties.

The decision concerns Parkland Corporation’s motion for interlocutory relief to enforce negative covenants in a lease requiring Caledon Fuels Inc. to operate a gas station as an Ultramar station with fuel supplied by Parkland.

The court grants Parkland leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and issues an injunction against Caledon and the purchaser, 16408117 Canada Inc., from breaching the lease.

The ruling addresses the legal tests for a CPL and interlocutory injunction, the effect of actual notice of a lease under the Land Titles Act, and the balance of convenience between the parties.

The trial concerned a counterclaim by Daro Industries Inc. and Robert Danninger against Innocon and Lafarge Canada Inc. for breach of contract (Sale of Goods Act), negligence, and defamation, arising from the delamination of a self-levelling floor screed product, Fina, supplied by Lafarge for a high-rise construction project.

Daro alleged the Fina was defective due to limestone filler causing delayed hydration and expansion.

Lafarge contended the delamination was due to Daro's improper installation, including inadequate primer application and uncontrolled environmental factors.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding Daro failed to prove the Fina was defective or that Lafarge was negligent or defamed Daro.

The court concluded the delamination was more likely due to Daro's installation deficiencies and site conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and his nine-month sentence.

The conviction appeal raised issues regarding the trial judge's findings on "lawful authority" for the appellant's actions and the objective reasonableness of the complainant's fear.

The sentence appeal argued that the sentence was disproportionate and that the trial judge erred by relying on inapt comparator cases and failing to adhere to the "step-up" principle.

The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's conclusions on lawful authority or the objective reasonableness of the complainant's fear, and no error in principle regarding the sentence, which was deemed fit given the appellant's criminal record and lack of remorse.

The defendant, Abdulkadir Mohamud, was found guilty of trafficking fentanyl, possessing Percocet for trafficking, and possession of property obtained by crime.

Following an unsuccessful entrapment application, the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The Crown sought a reformatory term of two years less a day, resulting in nine months of actual custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court granted a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community under strict conditions.

The decision emphasized rehabilitation, the social context of anti-Black racism, and the defendant's positive Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report, concluding that a conditional sentence would not endanger community safety and was consistent with sentencing principles, despite the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking.

The United States sought to extradite the applicant for child luring offences.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the extradition proceedings, arguing abuse of process.

The court found that the provincial Crown breached the applicant's section 7 and 8 Charter rights during a prior domestic prosecution by failing to disclose ongoing interactions with US authorities and by sharing his computer hard drive without limitations.

This misconduct prejudiced the applicant, who pleaded guilty domestically without knowing his full jeopardy.

The court concluded this was one of the clearest of cases where a stay of proceedings was necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.