Ranjan K. Agarwal

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, sought to discontinue his class action against Cidel Trust Company and Neo International Investments Ltd. in a securities misrepresentation case involving Anaergia Inc. The court approved the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to the class or defendants, and ordered that notice be given to class members.

The court also granted procedural orders regarding factum length and amended the litigation timetable.

The court issued supplementary reasons in a family law application, correcting and clarifying its earlier order.

The decision addresses mistakes and omissions in the original reasons, including the division of property, entitlement to compensation for beneficial interests, limitation periods for trust claims, and the effect of post-separation mortgage refinancing.

The court orders compensation for the applicant’s share of the Bashundhara plot, finds the claim for the Australian properties limitations-barred, and clarifies the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The plaintiffs sued their real estate agent, alleging he defrauded them into purchasing a home with an illegal basement and securing a private mortgage.

The defendant agent moved for leave to issue a third party claim against the plaintiffs, a restaurant corporation, and his own investment company for contribution and indemnity regarding the mortgage loan default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed third party claim was actually a breach of contract claim that was discoverable when the loan defaulted in December 2021.

Consequently, the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and granting leave would cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The moving party tenant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent landlord from interfering with its use of a commercial truck yard.

The respondent had been using the property without paying rent and had locked the moving party out following a violent robbery.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the continuous interference with the tenant's property rights constituted irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property and granted the tenant exclusive possession.

This consolidated trial addressed multiple disputes between Raymond Nicolini (through Sayward Investments Inc., InSite Construction Management Inc., and King Station Facility Inc.) and Vilson Da Silva (through Leblon Carpentry Inc., Leblon Drywall Inc., and his wife Daenn Monteiro Loureiro).

The court found that Da Silva, Loureiro, and Leblon Carpentry breached a 2019 loan agreement with Sayward, owing $38,909.29.

A 2020 advance from Sayward to Leblon Carpentry and Da Silva was determined to be a loan, not a joint venture, with $203,735.20 owing.

The mortgage on the matrimonial home was held to secure only the 2019 loan, not the 2020 loan, due to lack of spousal consent.

The drywall contract between InSite and Leblon Drywall was found to have a price of $1,330,742, and Leblon Drywall was deemed overpaid, leading to the dismissal of its breach of contract claim.

The parties were found to have mutually terminated the drywall contract, releasing each other from claims for deficiencies and overpayments.

Claims of oppression and conspiracy brought by InSite were dismissed, as InSite was not a proper complainant for oppression and the lien claim lacked a predominant purpose to injure.

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for a jury trial, relying on the recently amended Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that it would cause undue delay and increase costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bifurcation can promote timely justice, the defendants' request was made too late in the litigation process, close to the scheduled trial date.

The court determined that granting the motion would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs by effectively adjourning the damages hearing for an estimated two years, outweighing any potential cost savings or efficiencies.

The applicant, Textile City Inc., sought relief against forfeiture of a sublease after the respondent, Reliable Logistics, attempted to terminate it, alleging non-permitted retail use and other breaches.

The court found that Textile City Inc. had indeed breached the lease by operating a retail business from the office space, but that Reliable Logistics had not waived its right to forfeiture by accepting rent.

However, the court granted relief against forfeiture, finding that Reliable Logistics had acted in bad faith through a series of actions aimed at forcing Textile City Inc. to vacate, and that Textile City Inc.'s breach was modest and had ceased.

The court also addressed ancillary issues regarding additional rent, garbage bins, and signage.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a 17-year marriage.

The applicant brought a family law application to resolve complex financial issues, including the equalization of properties and businesses in Canada, Bangladesh, and Australia.

The court first held that an unsigned separation agreement was unenforceable under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the beneficial ownership and valuation of various assets, including the matrimonial home, foreign properties, and business debts, ultimately finding that both parties had negative net family properties, resulting in no equalization payment.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $130,000 and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant liable for the torts of battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to a prolonged pattern of intimate partner violence, awarding the respondent $175,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages, plus $25,000 in punitive damages.

The plaintiff catering company sued its former executive chef and a daycare customer after the chef resigned to work directly for the daycare, moving its meal program onsite.

The plaintiff alleged the chef misappropriated confidential information, including menus and pricing, and breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff also alleged the defendants intentionally destroyed electronic evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety.

The court found the menus and processes were not confidential, the restrictive covenants were overly broad and unenforceable, the employee was not a fiduciary, and the defendants did not engage in spoliation of evidence.

The court also gave no weight to the plaintiff's electronic evidence due to a lack of forensic preservation.

The applicant moved for financial disclosure from her former spouse in the context of a motion to change child support.

The court found that the motion was improperly briefed by both parties, with voluminous and confusing materials filed at the last minute.

Despite the procedural deficiencies, the court ruled on the outstanding undertakings and refusals from the respondent's questioning, ordering him to provide the requested financial information.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's failure to provide a timely costs outline and the disproportionate nature of the costs claimed.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, seeking leave to represent a class in a securities class action, served an affidavit from a lawyer, Lon Michael Kirsh.

The defendants, Anaergia Inc., Andrew Benedek, and Hani El-Kaissi, moved to strike the affidavit, arguing it contained inadmissible opinion evidence.

After the plaintiff served a revised affidavit removing opinions, the defendants moved again to strike it, alleging irrelevance and immateriality.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the affidavit contained permissible observations of voluminous public filings rather than inadmissible opinions.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs thrown away to the defendants due to the initial inadmissible affidavit.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence as an abuse of process under Rule 25.11(c), alleging the defendant's lawyer was non-responsive and failed to serve a notice of change of lawyer.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 25.11 is reserved for abusive pleadings, not to sanction a lawyer's conduct during the proceeding.

The court also found no requirement for lawyers in the same workplace to serve a notice of change.

Despite the defendant's success, the court declined to award costs, finding that the motion could have been avoided if the defendant's lawyer had communicated promptly and professionally with the self-represented plaintiff.

The Town of Milton brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence claim by the plaintiffs, who alleged catastrophic injuries from a motorcycle accident caused by a pothole.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove non-repair or causation, and that the Town met the minimum maintenance standards for the road.

The motion was not premature despite incomplete discoveries, as the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to pursue discovery.

Costs were awarded to the Town of Milton.

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 and respondent, both self-represented, sought various relief following a high-conflict separation.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, restricted parenting time for the respondent, equalization, child support, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought sole decision-making for the younger children, shared parenting time, and occupation rent.

The court found the respondent had engaged in family violence and coercive control, and the parties were unable to communicate or cooperate.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and maintained the status quo for the respondent's parenting time.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, imputed income to both parties, and ordered the respondent to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, equalization, the Mahr, and post-separation adjustments totaling $148,965.54.

The court also granted a restraining order against the respondent and dismissed his claim for occupation rent.

The defendants, a children's aid society and its employees, moved to strike the self-represented plaintiffs' claims arising from a child protection investigation.

The court struck the parents' claims for intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter damages with leave to amend, finding the pleadings lacked necessary material facts.

The negligence claims were struck without leave to amend because a children's aid society does not owe a duty of care to parents.

The court also granted a sealing order to protect the privacy interests of the children involved.

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 applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent gifted the matrimonial home to her, spousal support, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought occupation rent and various deductions from his net family property.

The court found that the transfer of the matrimonial home was not a gift but was done to shield it from creditors, resulting in a resulting trust where the respondent held a one-half beneficial interest.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $368,029.86 and indefinite spousal support.

The claims for a restraining order and occupation rent were dismissed.

This decision addresses pre-trial applications in a human trafficking case.

The accused sought production of third-party records and leave to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity under section 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown also sought leave to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity under common law principles.

The court granted the defence's application for third-party records in part, ordering specific police records to be produced.

The applications regarding other sexual history evidence were also granted in part.

The Crown was permitted to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior involvement in the sex trade, including sexual photographs and her street name.

The defence was permitted to cross-examine the complainant on whether her prior sex work was independent and on specific text messages with the accused that might contradict her narrative of being trafficked.

However, certain evidence, such as a police officer's text message and later police records suggesting independent sex work, was deemed inadmissible due to lack of relevance or not constituting a specific instance of sexual activity.

The accused, Rene Smith, applied for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was over 31 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The court found no defence delay but identified two exceptional circumstances: the court's loss of disclosure (4 months and 10 days) and a mistrial (11 days), which were beyond the Crown's control.

The appointment of an amicus was not deemed exceptional as the need was foreseeable.

After subtracting the exceptional delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that the remaining delay was not unreasonable, despite the applicant's efforts to expedite proceedings, as his conduct made the case more complex.