Ranjan K. Agarwal

The plaintiff bank obtained a without-notice Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property transferred from a guarantor to his former spouse, alleging a fraudulent conveyance to defeat enforcement of a loan guarantee.

The trustee in bankruptcy moved to extend the CPL, while the defendants sought its discharge.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the plaintiff did not fail to make full and frank disclosure.

Applying the Grefford test, the Court found a high probability the plaintiff would establish default, sufficient badges of fraud to raise a triable issue of fraudulent conveyance, and that the balance of convenience favoured extending the CPL.

The motion to extend was granted and costs were ordered in the cause.

The applicant sought property, support, and parenting orders following the breakdown of a nine-year common-law relationship.

The court found the applicant held a 50 percent beneficial interest in a home titled solely in the respondent's name, as she had contributed to the down payment and carrying costs from a joint account.

The court declined to impute a one-time capital gain to the respondent's income for child support purposes.

Retroactive child support was awarded from the date the respondent ceased paying the children's private school tuition, but the court declined to order retroactive contribution to the tuition itself, finding the private school expenses were neither necessary nor extraordinary given the post-separation financial circumstances.

The plaintiffs, who lost money in syndicated mortgage investments, sought leave under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 to proceed with a class action against the provincial regulator (FSCO) and its senior employees.

The plaintiffs alleged that FSCO's failure to take regulatory action earlier despite warnings of a Ponzi scheme constituted bad faith.

The court granted leave for the claim of misfeasance in public office, finding a reasonable possibility that a trial judge could infer bad faith from FSCO's inexplicable carelessness.

However, leave was denied for the claims of misconduct by a public authority (which does not exist in Ontario) and negligence (as FSCO owed no private duty of care to individual investors).

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants for allegedly breaching a Mareva injunction by dissipating assets and failing to disclose bank accounts.

The defendants moved to strike the contempt motion for lack of particulars and improper service.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their notice of motion and to file additional affidavits based on evidence obtained during cross-examinations and from third-party banks.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding they had fair notice of the allegations.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to amend the notice of motion and file additional affidavits, as the new evidence was relevant and there was no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs settled with two defendants under a Pierringer agreement and served a redacted copy on the remaining defendant, the City of Brampton.

Brampton's counsel unredacted the document, discovered the settlement amount, and disclosed it to his clients.

The plaintiffs moved to remove Brampton's counsel of record.

The court found the counsel's conduct blameworthy but dismissed the motion, concluding that removal and adjourning the imminent trial would be an extreme response since the disclosure did not prejudice the trial process itself.

The parties separated in 2019 and sought orders regarding decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and spousal support for their two children.

The court granted the applicant father sole decision-making responsibility for the younger child's education, but ordered joint decision-making for health, religion, and extra-curricular activities.

A 5-5-2-2 shared parenting schedule was ordered.

The court found the respondent mother was not intentionally under-employed despite being terminated for cause, and ordered the applicant to pay set-off child support.

The court also held that private school tuition was not a section 7 extraordinary expense, ordered the applicant to pay retroactive child support, and dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

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.

The applicant beneficiary sought to pass over the named estate trustees and claimed damages against one trustee for breach of fiduciary duty, devastavit, and unjust enrichment.

The respondent trustee argued there was a binding settlement agreement and that the applicant lacked standing.

The court found no binding settlement agreement, as the respondent's acceptance was a counter-offer.

The court held the applicant had standing as a beneficiary to sue the trustee.

However, the court dismissed the damages claims, finding insufficient evidence that the trustee mismanaged the estate or was unjustly enriched.

A third party was appointed as estate trustee on consent.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment on a fraudulent conveyance claim to enforce an Alberta family law judgment against her former spouse.

The defendant moved to set aside the noting in default.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding his explanations for delay lacked credibility and he failed to show a meritorious defence.

The court granted default judgment, finding numerous badges of fraud indicating the defendant transferred a property to closely held corporations to defeat the plaintiff's enforcement efforts.

The conveyance was declared void and the defendant was ordered to pay $25,000 in costs.

The Police defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' jury notice on the grounds that it was served after pleadings closed and that justice would be better served by a trial without a jury.

The court found that the pleadings had been re-opened for all purposes following amendments, making the jury notice timely.

However, the court struck the jury notice because the presence of multiple self-represented litigants, highly charged allegations, and complex causes of action made a jury trial impractical and risked a mistrial.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the successful Police defendants.

The plaintiff sued the defendant pharmaceutical company for negligence, alleging that its prescription inhaler, Symbicort, caused him to develop a rare disease, EGPA.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff could not prove general causation.

The court accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that while there is an epidemiological association between the drug and the disease, there is no causal connection.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action.

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.

In a securities class action arising from an issuer's restated financial statements and revised guidance, the court considered leave under the Securities Act for secondary market claims, certification under the Class Proceedings Act, and the defendants' summary judgment motion on limitation issues affecting the primary market claim.

The court held there was a reasonable possibility of success on claims based on conceded financial misstatements, omission of intersegment sales from the IPO prospectus, and related officer certifications, but not on alleged misstatements in the issuer's financial outlook because the assumptions were reasonable when made and the plaintiff had not shown materiality.

The action was certified as a class proceeding, with the court rejecting proposed subclass restrictions tied to Canadian underwriters and post-correction shareholding.

On the limitations issue, the court held that the Securities Act ousts common-law discoverability for the 180-day period and requires actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim.

Summary judgment was dismissed because the record did not establish that the representative plaintiff had actual knowledge outside the limitation period.

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.