Rameshwer Singh Sangha

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Coco Developments Ltd., against the defendant, Sukhwant Singh Bal, for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring trial regarding liability or damages.

The defendant failed to close the transaction, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages reflecting the difference between the original and resale prices, as well as carrying costs.

The court also awarded the plaintiff $19,000 in costs, relying on the agreement’s full indemnity provision and the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s legal costs.

The respondent, Shruti Bhatia, brought a motion seeking an order that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decline jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, arguing that India was the "clearly more appropriate" forum.

The court had previously established jurisdiction simpliciter under the Divorce Act.

The motion was dismissed, as the respondent failed to demonstrate that India was significantly more appropriate.

The court considered factors such as the location of parties and witnesses (noting the child's connections to India arose from unlawful abduction), the costs of transferring the case, and the potential for conflicting judgments or loss of juridical advantage, finding no compelling reason to displace Ontario's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought an order for the return of the child (SK) to Canada and a parenting order, arguing that the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The respondent claimed Ontario had no jurisdiction, asserting SK was habitually resident in India.

The court found that SK was habitually resident in Ontario at the start of the application, as the respondent had unlawfully abducted the child to India and the applicant had not consented or acquiesced.

The court declined to make an immediate "chasing order" for the child's return, citing insufficient evidence on best interests and lack of express statutory authority, but ordered the respondent to file an answer to proceed to trial on parenting issues.

The appellant appealed a divorce judgment, arguing the trial judge lacked jurisdiction because the respondent had not been resident in Ontario for the one year immediately preceding the proceeding as required by s. 3 of the Divorce Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record supported the respondent's assertion of compliance with the residency provision.

Costs were fixed at $500 due to the appellant's difficult personal circumstances.