Pradeep Chand

The appellant, whose licence to practise law was revoked for serious misconduct, brought a motion for a stay of the revocation order and a publication ban pending his appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, there was no irreparable harm since the appellant was already suspended on an interlocutory basis, and the balance of convenience and public interest favoured maintaining the revocation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the motion for a publication ban, applying the Sherman Estate test and concluding that the appellant's privacy interests did not outweigh the fundamental importance of openness in professional regulation.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant's motion materials claimed he would suffer irreparable harm by losing his existing licence and livelihood.

However, the court found that the appellant had not been licensed for over two years and was applying for a new registration.

Because a stay would merely maintain the status quo of him being unlicensed, he could not establish irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the court noted serious concerns about the appellant's counsel misrepresenting facts in the motion materials.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by proceeding without his documents or witnesses, re-litigating settled civil issues, and relying on conduct not alleged in the Notice of Proposal.

He also alleged errors of fact regarding his acceptance of responsibility and evidence of a hacked Instagram account.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and consented to the appellant's registration subject to specific conditions, including a two-year restriction on holding management or ownership roles in a dealership and a requirement to satisfy outstanding Provincial Offences Act penalties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant's registration be suspended for three months, during which she must complete a certification course, followed by a two-year period with conditions restricting her from acting as a final signatory or holding a controlling interest in a motor vehicle dealer.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

She brought a motion to compel the respondent to disclose various documents forthwith and requested costs.

The Tribunal denied the motion as premature, noting that the respondent had not refused disclosure and the deadline set in a prior case conference order had not yet passed.

No costs were ordered as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

The defendant paralegal, Eric Sabbah, brought a motion to strike and dismiss claims brought by the plaintiff, Utilebill Credit Corporation.

The plaintiff alleged various torts, including conversion, unlawful interference with economic interests, inducing breach of contract, injurious falsehood, and statutory violations, stemming from Mr. Sabbah's actions in assisting residential homeowners to cancel HVAC equipment rental contracts with the plaintiff.

The court dismissed all claims against Mr. Sabbah, except for the claim of conspiracy, for which the plaintiff was ordered to provide further particulars of the alleged unlawful means.

The court emphasized the protection of solicitor-client privilege and the impropriety of suing opposing counsel for advice given to clients.

The appellant, Tharani Holdings Inc., appealed the dismissal of its application challenging the administration of a condominium corporation (MTCC 812) and its directors.

The original application alleged numerous technical breaches of the Condominium Act and regulations, seeking remedies such as director removal, inspector appointment, and the oppression remedy.

The application judge dismissed the claims, finding no evidence of substantively harmful conduct.

On appeal, Tharani Holdings Inc. argued that the application judge showed reasonable apprehension of bias and failed to grant warranted remedies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the bias claim and upholding the application judge's discretion to refuse remedies for technical breaches in the absence of actual harm or prejudice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application seeking various orders against the condominium corporation and its directors, including compliance with the Condominium Act, invalidation of board elections, appointment of an inspector, and damages.

The applicant alleged numerous technical breaches of the Act and regulations, as well as mismanagement.

The court found that the alleged breaches were largely formalistic errors that caused no substantive prejudice or harm.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing that technical breaches without demonstrated prejudice do not warrant the remedies sought, and declined to award damages or appoint an inspector due to lack of evidence of financial impropriety.

This endorsement addresses compliance with a previous court order regarding rent payments and premises vacation.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached the order by contacting subtenants and sought an injunction.

The respondent claimed the applicant owed additional rent and credited subtenant payments received.

The court reaffirmed the terms of the prior endorsement, requiring the applicant to pay rent as due (less subtenant payments received by the respondent) and stating that failure to pay would release the respondent from their undertaking not to remove the applicant.

The court declined to hear the injunction request due to the lack of a formal motion and factum, noting potential issues with establishing irreparable harm.

Costs were reserved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Certificates of Pending Litigation against the defendants, alleging they perpetrated a Ponzi scheme involving mortgage and securities fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, oppression, and conspiracy, noting that tens of millions of dollars were raised without proper compliance and were unaccounted for.

The court inferred a strong risk of dissipation of assets based on the defendants' conduct, including the listing of a $4 million house and suspicious property transfers.

The motion for the Mareva injunction and CPLs was granted.

The appellant applied to be registered as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration due to the appellant's lengthy drug-related criminal record, which included convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but conceded that his application could not succeed if his criminal convictions were upheld on appeal.

Following the Ontario Court of Appeal's dismissal of his criminal appeal, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to deny the registration.

The plaintiff, Grasshopper Solar Corp., brought a motion for default judgment seeking $44,992.53 in damages due to the defendants' failure to complete the registration process for a solar energy lease assignment.

The court found a lack of evidence for a valid assignment from the original homeowners to an intermediate party, Joseph Lauzon, and noted that Lauzon's failure to sign the assignment invalidated it under the Statute of Frauds.

Consequently, the motion for default judgment was dismissed due to the lack of clarity in the evidence.

The plaintiffs moved for an interim order for the recovery of possession of personal property (software and hardware).

The defendants cross-moved for a stay of the action, alleging the plaintiffs were in default of corporate filing requirements under the Corporations Information Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, finding the corporate filing default was inadvertent, corrected, and did not deceive the public, thus granting leave for the plaintiffs to proceed.

The court then granted the plaintiffs' motion for interim recovery of property, finding substantial grounds for the plaintiffs' ownership/entitlement, unlawful detention by the defendants, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

No security was required.

The appellants appealed an order for immediate compliance issued by the Director under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants served a witness summons on the Director, seeking her testimony and the production of extensive investigative records.

The Director brought a motion to quash the summons.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the summons was overly broad, constituted a fishing expedition, and sought evidence that was irrelevant to the Tribunal's de novo hearing.

The Tribunal also noted that the Director, acting in a regulatory and enforcement capacity, should not be compelled to testify about her decision-making process.

The Director under the Consumer Protection Act issued an order for immediate compliance against the appellants regarding their HVAC rental business practices.

The appellants appealed the order.

The Director brought a motion to extend the immediate compliance order until the hearing, while the appellants brought a counter-motion to stay the order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Director's motion to extend the order, finding that the public interest in consumer protection outweighed the appellants' business interests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motion for a stay, applying the RJR MacDonald test and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of inconvenience favoured the public interest.

The Appellant appealed Notices of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for allegedly permitting drunkenness, serving intoxicated patrons, and encouraging immoderate consumption of alcohol.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant permitted drunkenness and served intoxicated patrons on two occasions, as the patrons displayed obvious signs of intoxication that staff ought to have noticed.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the Appellant encouraged immoderate consumption, as serving multiple drinks at last call on one occasion did not constitute a practice or program.

A preliminary motion to compel the Deputy Registrar to testify was dismissed as irrelevant to the de novo proceeding.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days after an undercover police operation revealed that a bartender was actively involved in trafficking cocaine on the premises.

The appellant appealed, arguing the principal had no knowledge of the drug trafficking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the principal either knew or was willfully blind to the activities, and that the licensee is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees left in charge.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant contravened subsection 45(2) of Regulation 719/90 and invited submissions on penalty.

Following a finding that the licensee breached multiple provisions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, including permitting drunkenness and failing to facilitate an inspection, the parties provided written submissions on sanction.

The Registrar sought a 25 to 30-day suspension, while the licensee argued for 7 to 10 days.

The Tribunal ordered a 23-day suspension, emphasizing specific and general deterrence given the significance and repetition of the breaches shortly after the licence was issued.

The appellant licensee appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by selling liquor to an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness, which tragically resulted in the patron's death in an accident on the way home.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal weighed factors including public protection, deterrence, and the licensee's lack of remedial measures.

The Tribunal ordered a 55-day suspension of the liquor licence.