Ranjan K. Agarwal

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.

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 appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting them for nonpayment of rent.

They argued the Board denied them procedural fairness by deciding service issues before hearing arguments on the nature of the tenancy, and that the Board misinterpreted section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in finding they were joint tenants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that determining service first was procedurally fair and that the appellants' statutory interpretation arguments were actually unappealable disagreements with the Board's factual findings.

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.