Ranjan K. Agarwal

Following a decision granting leave to proceed with secondary market misrepresentation claims and certifying a class action, the parties disputed the settlement of the order, the certification of the primary market subclass's financial outlook claim, and costs.

The court held that the primary market subclass's claim remained certified, as importing a merits-based leave test into the certification criteria was improper.

The court settled the order in accordance with the plaintiff's draft, declined to clarify findings of fact, and awarded the plaintiff $950,000 in costs based on overall success.

In a mid-trial Charter application, the accused sought exclusion of cocaine evidence seized from his basement bedroom during execution of a warrant targeting another occupant of the residence.

The court held the search was reasonable under s 8 because, on the totality of the circumstances, police could reasonably conclude the target had access to the room or that the accused was connected to the target’s alleged trafficking activity.

The court found the dwelling functioned as a single-family home with shared access features and no clear objective indicators of a separate, excluded sub-unit.

Alternatively, even assuming a Charter breach, exclusion under s 24(2) was refused after balancing police culpability, privacy impact, and society’s interest in adjudication on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent in the original family law proceeding moved to set aside default orders made at an uncontested trial regarding child support, equalization, post-separation adjustments, and transfer of the matrimonial home.

The moving party established that he never received notice of the proceeding because substituted service was effected to an email account he could no longer access.

Applying the factors from Zia v Ahmad and Mountain View Farms, the court found the moving party acted promptly, had an arguable defence on the merits regarding both the matrimonial home and imputed income for child support, acted in good faith, and would suffer greater prejudice if denied his day in court.

The motion was granted and the default orders were set aside.

This is a foreclosure action on a mortgage originally given in 1993 by 830990 Ontario Ltd. to 823042 Ontario Inc., allegedly assumed by 1305268 Ontario Inc. in 2006.

The plaintiff claimed the mortgage went into default in 2011 and sought foreclosure for over $2.5 million in unpaid interest.

The defendant argued the entire claim was a fraud orchestrated by Kenneth James, a disgruntled shareholder.

The court found that the plaintiff's principal witnesses, Marco Lorenti and Kenneth James, were not credible.

The court determined that the mortgage was never renewed or validly transferred to the plaintiff, that the renewal letters and transfer document were forged, and that the plaintiff was not the valid holder of the mortgage.

The action was dismissed.

Additionally, the court found the claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

A family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, and related issues for a child born to parents who separated when the child was eight months old.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility over health and education, while the respondent sought joint decision-making with tie-breaking authority.

The court found a pattern of coercive control and poor communication by the respondent, resulting in an order granting the applicant sole decision-making responsibility over health and education, with joint responsibility over culture and extracurricular activities.

The court maintained the existing parenting time schedule (approximately 40% with the respondent), imputed income to both parties, and ordered child support with a net offset.

The court also determined that private school tuition was not a section 7 expense and ordered retroactive support calculations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to commence a class action against the Crown and Crown employees for losses suffered from investments in syndicated mortgage investments marketed by Tier 1 Transaction Advisory Services Inc. The defendants moved to strike an affidavit from Krista Zingel on the grounds that she is not a compellable witness under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of that Act.

During cross-examination of the defendant Monid on his affidavit, the plaintiffs sought rulings on the propriety of objections to various questions.

The court ruled on the scope of cross-examination on a leave motion, considering relevance, proportionality, and improper legal argument.

The plaintiffs sued the Halton Police Board and individual officers for tort damages arising from an alleged trespass and police assault in Fall 2021.

The court heard multiple motions: (1) to amend the statement of claim to substitute and add defendants; (2) to examine a non-party for discovery; and (3) to discontinue a counterclaim.

The court granted leave to substitute Officer Bowes for Officer John Doe #2, Officer Pinkney for Officer John Doe #1, and Sara Nielsen for Jane Doe.

The court dismissed the motion to add Officers Proulx, Forde, Blanchard, and Vander Heyden as defendants due to expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion to examine Ekaterina Latour for discovery due to improper service and lack of relevance.

The court permitted discontinuance of Michael Krog's counterclaim and awarded costs against him.

The court also awarded costs to the Police defendants against the plaintiffs for the unsuccessful motion to add defendants.

The court imposed a 21-day jail sentence on a corporate officer for civil contempt of court.

The officer repeatedly refused to attend examinations in aid of execution despite multiple court orders, summons, and opportunities to comply.

The court found that suspended sentences and fines would be ineffective given the respondent's pattern of non-compliance.

The court also awarded costs of $15,750 to the creditor union.

The underlying dispute involved unpaid wages and benefits owed to union members under a collective agreement, with an arbitrator's award of $50,587.38 that remained largely unpaid.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property and spousal support following separation from the respondent's ex-husband, who passed away during the litigation.

The applicant claimed the respondent held a commercial investment property in trust for the deceased spouse and that she had a beneficial interest through unjust enrichment or fraudulent conveyance.

The court found the deceased had no ownership interest in the property, the trust agreement was a sham created by the deceased to mislead the applicant, and the applicant lacked standing to assert a trust claim against a third party for equalization purposes.

The court dismissed the equalization claim but awarded retroactive spousal support.

The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction (freezing order) against the defendants' assets, alleging that the defendants received fraudulent conveyances from Navdeep Boparai, who had been found liable for defrauding the plaintiffs of approximately $1.6 million.

The defendants argued that the statement of claim should be struck as lacking particulars.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance, a serious risk of asset dissipation, and irreparable harm.

The court rejected the defendants' argument regarding particulars, finding the pleadings sufficient.

Costs of $50,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, Pushpinder Dhanoa, sought enforcement of a mortgage loan against the defendant, Bharati Ramnarine, who defaulted on payments.

Ramnarine argued the mortgage contract was void due to alleged misrepresentation by the mortgage agent, Satinder Gill, and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found no misrepresentation or breach by Dhanoa, held that Ramnarine understood the terms, and ordered her to pay the outstanding amount and deliver possession of the property to Dhanoa.

The court considered a motion to strike or exclude expert reports filed by the plaintiffs in a proposed class action concerning alleged regulatory failures in the oversight of syndicated mortgage investments.

The court found that the expert evidence was relevant to the leave motion but ultimately struck the affidavit of one expert and portions of another for lack of impartiality and proper qualifications.

The decision clarifies the threshold requirements for admissibility of expert evidence, including relevance, qualifications, and impartiality, in the context of motions for leave under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The accused, Athena King, was stopped by police and found in possession of illegal drugs.

She challenged the admissibility of the evidence, alleging breaches of her Charter rights during the stop, search, and arrest.

The court found minor breaches of her right to counsel but held that these did not warrant exclusion of the evidence.

King was found guilty of all charges.

The court considered an application for interim spousal support by Harmanpreet Kaur, sponsored to Canada by Jaskaran Singh Meen.

Meen conceded entitlement and the court determined the quantum, ordering $1,150 per month in interim support, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the sponsorship undertaking and the recipient’s needs.

The court also awarded $3,500 in costs to Kaur, finding Meen’s conduct unnecessarily lengthened the motion.

The decision reviews the law on interim support, the effect of sponsorship undertakings, and the approach to costs in family law motions.

The plaintiff, Antonio De Bartolo, sought to hold Roberto Mattacchione personally liable for legal fees incurred by Initiatives Canada Corporation (ICC), for which Mattacchione was the principal.

The court found that there was no enforceable contract or guarantee between De Bartolo and Mattacchione, and dismissed the claim against Mattacchione personally.

Judgment was granted against ICC and PAC Protection Corporation for the outstanding legal fees and interest.

The court considered whether Parkland Corporation was entitled to a permanent injunction and other relief against 2700455 Ontario Inc. for breach of an exclusive fuel supply agreement.

The court found that 270 breached the agreement by failing to provide a security deposit and by selling non-Parkland fuel.

The court rejected arguments of frustration and fundamental breach, held the exclusive supply clause enforceable, and granted a permanent injunction prohibiting 270 from selling non-Parkland fuel.

Damages were left for trial, and costs were awarded to Parkland.

This decision concerns a complex auto theft and revinning scheme involving ServiceOntario employees and a body shop operator.

The court found that Eric Johnson and Tonisha Baird conspired to traffic stolen vehicles and conceal their true ownership by using fraudulent or cloned VINs.

The evidence was largely circumstantial, including wiretaps, documents, and items seized during police searches.

Baird was found guilty of conspiracy, possession of property obtained by crime, and breach of trust.

Johnson was found guilty of conspiracy, trafficking, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, the conduct of the accused, and the legal standards for each offence, ultimately finding that the only reasonable inference was guilt.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to section 9(5)(a)(i) of the Cannabis Act, which prohibits discharges for indictable offences of possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution.

The court upholds the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the infringement on liberty is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad, does not impose a grossly disproportionate sentence, and does not create a distinction based on race in its impact.

The court sentences the accused, Rene Smith, to a fine of $7,500 and makes several ancillary orders.

The decision addresses a motion by Robyn Lynn Minifie for disclosure and production of documents from the Diocese’s investigation into allegations of sexual assault by Lawrence Paquette.

The court orders the Diocese to provide particulars of the investigation documents and affirms that a pre-trial conference brief is settlement privileged, requiring its destruction and removal from the court file.

The ruling clarifies the scope of settlement privilege and the process for challenging privilege claims in civil litigation.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to decide two post-trial issues: entitlement to $15,000 held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, and entitlement to the contents of a safe.

The court found it had jurisdiction but could not decide the issues on the record before it.

The parties were directed to commence fresh proceedings to resolve these matters.