Rahul Gandotra

The applicants sought an order to discharge a mortgage registered by the respondent on their property, which they claimed was invalid and for which no funds were advanced.

Despite an earlier settlement agreement where the respondent's counsel waived the claim and agreed to discharge the mortgage, the respondent subsequently refused to sign the necessary authorization.

The court found the applicants' evidence uncontested, granted the order discharging the mortgage, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants, noting the respondent's failure to appear or file materials.

The plaintiff, a pharmacy, sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reinstate its billing services agreement with the defendant, a pharmacy benefits manager, after the defendant terminated the agreement for cause following an audit.

The court found the injunction sought was mandatory, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court determined the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, as the defendant acted within its contractual rights and the plaintiff's potential damages were quantifiable.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporate entity, to post security for costs.

The plaintiff conceded it had no assets or income but argued it was impecunious and its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and could not assess the merits at an interlocutory stage.

While noting the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court ordered the plaintiff to post partial security for costs, balancing the need to protect defendants from unenforceable cost awards against allowing a claim to proceed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from the purchase of a radiology clinic.

The plaintiff claimed it was impecunious and that its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and that the merits of the complex claim could not be properly assessed at the interlocutory stage.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the total amount of $80,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to amend a previously issued judgment (and Statement of Claim) that recognized and enforced a U.S. District Court judgment.

The purpose of the amendment was to correct the name of the individual Defendant, Ray Rasouli, who uses several versions of his name.

The Defendant, appearing self-represented, acknowledged the accuracy of the proposed corrections and informed the court of a recent appeal filed against the U.S. judgment.

The court granted the motion to amend and advised the Defendant to keep the Plaintiffs' counsel updated on the U.S. litigation's progress, noting that future motions might be necessary if the U.S. judgment is altered on appeal.

The appellants appealed an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The suspension was based on a shortfall of over $341,000 in the brokerage's trust account.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a prima facie case of the shortfall and that the appellants failed to provide an explanation or rectify it.

The Tribunal concluded that extending the immediate suspension order pending the full hearing was necessary in the public interest to protect consumer funds.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction related to an alleged $1.4 million renovation fraud.

A defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the order against him, and a non-party sought relief from an order compelling his examination under oath.

The court extended the Mareva order, dismissed the defendant's cross-motion as premature due to missing financial disclosure, and suspended the examination order against the non-party due to lack of service and reliance on implausible hearsay evidence.

The court also provided strict directions regarding the proper use of CaseLines and hyperlinking for future attendances.

The plaintiff, an elderly woman, brought a motion to extend an interim and interlocutory Mareva Injunction against multiple defendants, alleging over $1 million in payments for uncompleted home renovation work constituted fraud.

The Mareva Injunction had been previously ordered and extended, and a Norwich Order was made against TD Bank.

Defendant Rahimi cross-moved to lift the injunction, claiming a payment was for a Rolex sale, but his explanation was deemed unsatisfactory and his compliance with disclosure incomplete.

Defendant Alradhi sought access to funds for living and legal expenses.

The court dismissed Rahimi's motion to lift the injunction but allowed him $10,000 for preauthorized expenses.

Alradhi's request for $15,000 for expenses was granted.

The Mareva Injunction was continued against all defendants, and TD Bank was ordered to immediately comply with the Norwich Order.

In an ongoing construction lien reference, both the plaintiff and the defendant sought costs for prior motions.

The plaintiff had taken over the litigation from the original plaintiff after the original plaintiff went bankrupt.

The court found that the defendant unreasonably delayed consenting to the plaintiff's lift-stay motions, entitling the plaintiff to costs.

However, the court also found that the current plaintiff was the 'real litigant' behind the bankrupt original plaintiff during the defendant's earlier successful stay motion, meeting the 'person of straw' test.

Consequently, the current plaintiff was held liable for the defendant's costs of that motion.

After setting off the amounts, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant net partial indemnity costs of $31,500.

The appellant brought a second application for adverse possession of a smaller portion of land after a previous application for the same parcel was dismissed on summary judgment and the appeal was dismissed.

The second application was dismissed on the basis of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The appellant appealed, claiming the subject matter of the current application was not the same.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the earlier action included the smaller portion and that a claimant cannot modify the parameters of their claim within the same boundaries to obtain a different result, as this is contrary to the objective of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of Shazia Khan due to her persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding discovery, document production, and accounting.

The motion also sought to schedule default judgment against Shazia Khan and summary judgment against Haroon Khan, and for production of documents from non-parties National Bank of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia.

The court denied an adjournment requested by the defendants based on an alleged settlement, prioritizing timely access to justice given the history of non-compliance.

The court granted the motion to strike Shazia Khan's statement of defence, finding her conduct a blatant disregard for court rules and orders, warranting this severe remedy.

The non-party production orders were also granted.

The scheduling of the judgment motions and a potential motion to enforce the alleged settlement was deferred to a case conference.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession over a portion of the respondent's land, as well as an order to remove a fence and trees.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had previously brought a similar claim in 2017, which was dismissed.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that the issue of adverse possession over the subject lands had already been determined in the prior action, where it was established that the previous owners had no intention to exclude the true owners.

The application was dismissed on the basis of res judicata.

Following a judgment granting the applicant's application and dismissing the respondent's cross-application, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs generally, but the applicant's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $60,000, representing partial indemnity costs until the date of the offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The applicant mortgagor paid the principal and all interest payable under a commercial mortgage two weeks before the maturity date.

The respondent mortgagee demanded a prepayment charge of one month's interest, which the mortgagor paid under protest to obtain a discharge.

The mortgagor applied for a declaration that the charge was improper and for repayment.

The mortgagee cross-applied, arguing it was entitled to three months' interest and that the parties had reached a settlement.

The court found no settlement was reached and held that the prepayment clause was not triggered because the mortgagor paid all interest due up to the maturity date.

The court ordered the mortgagee to repay the improperly charged fees.

The applicant landlord sought to terminate a commercial lease and obtain vacant possession due to the respondent tenant's non-payment of rent, failure to maintain insurance, and unauthorized residential use of the premises.

The tenant, who operated a martial arts studio, had been forced to close due to COVID-19 provincial orders and paid only 25% of the rent.

The court declined to grant the landlord's application, finding that the default was clearly related to the global pandemic and government-mandated shutdown.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to grant the tenant relief from forfeiture, conditional upon the tenant providing proof of insurance and ceasing residential use within ten days.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their claim for compensation for construction deficiencies in their new custom home.

Tarion brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appellants had previously settled a civil lawsuit against the builder and signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal found that the comprehensive release, which discharged the builder from all claims and warranties relating to the home's construction, eliminated the appellants' cause of action against the builder.

As a cause of action against the builder is a statutory prerequisite for compensation from the guarantee fund under section 14(3) of the Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act, the Tribunal granted the motion and directed Tarion to deny the claims.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment against two defendants on personal guarantees of a corporate loan and a credit card balance.

The defendants argued that bank representatives had assured them their liability was limited to 25% each, contrary to the literal wording of the guarantees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the guarantees, as the defendants' uncontradicted evidence about the bank's representations required credibility assessments.

The court also declined to grant partial summary judgment on the credit card and related fraudulent preference claims due to the risk of inconsistent findings.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Ottawa to Toronto.

The plaintiff, a corporation providing electricity bill consultation services, commenced the action in Ottawa for unpaid invoices.

The defendants argued that none of the parties reside in Ottawa, the agreement was executed in Toronto, and the witnesses are in Toronto or the Greater Toronto Area.

The court found that the only connection to Ottawa was the plaintiff's solicitor's office.

The court granted the motion, holding that the defendants discharged their onus to demonstrate that a transfer to Toronto was reasonable and in the interests of justice.

The court determined the quantum of costs for the plaintiff, Turn-Key Projects, following a remittal from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had found that Turn-Key was the successful party at trial, overturning the trial judge's initial decision to award no costs.

The court considered the parties' unreasonable positions on costs and applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the plaintiff's partial success at trial (recovering 64% of the principal amount sought).

The court awarded Turn-Key $25,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The defendants moved to set aside an ex parte order that granted the plaintiff, Kevin Fernandes, leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property.

The plaintiff had previously sued Mohammad Salman Khalid for failing to complete a property purchase.

Mohammad later declared bankruptcy after transferring property interests to his wife and mother.

The plaintiff then initiated a second action to set aside these transfers as fraudulent conveyances and obtained the CPL.

The court considered two tests for CPLs in fraudulent conveyance actions: a prima facie case of fraud and a higher threshold test.

The court found numerous "badges of fraud" including unexplained property transfers, inconsistent separation dates, misleading addresses, and continued co-habitation, which raised compelling suspicions of intent to defeat creditors.

The court maintained the CPL, concluding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of fraud and that the balance of convenience favored preserving the CPL to prevent asset dissipation.