Riaz Shabirali Sherali Ahmed

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the denial of a Mareva injunction motion brought by the plaintiff.

The injunction, initially granted ex parte, was denied because the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case and did not make full and frank disclosure.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought costs on a complete indemnity basis.

The court, balancing the parties' conduct, awarded costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $12,500.00 plus HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a default judgment granted by a Belgian court against the respondent for unpaid invoices.

The court found that the Belgian judgment met the criteria for recognition (competent jurisdiction, final, definite sum).

The respondent attempted to raise defenses of lack of natural justice (improper service, no opportunity to defend due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and lack of notice of rescheduled hearing), fraud, and public policy.

The court dismissed these defenses, finding that adequate notice was given and that the respondent failed to prove fraud or that the Belgian law was contrary to Canadian public policy.

The application for recognition and enforcement was granted.

The plaintiff, Hussein Al-Awadi, brought a summary trial action against Nassr Al Wisamy and Nas Motors Ltd. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to the sale of shares in Nas Motors Ltd. and an outstanding loan.

The defendants' request for an adjournment was denied.

The court found Nassr Al Wisamy liable for $60,000 ($55,000 for the share purchase agreement and $5,000 for the loan agreement) plus interest.

The claim against Nas Motors Ltd. was dismissed.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims for additional damages, including credit card interest, lost business commissions, and lost opportunity from a failed real estate purchase, finding them not reasonably foreseeable or proven to be caused by the breach.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This case involves appeals from a Master's decision regarding procedural motions in a breach of contract action related to a tender process.

Metrolinx, Exclusive Advertising Inc., and non-party IMA Outdoor Inc. all appealed various aspects.

The court allowed Metrolinx's appeal, dismissing those of Exclusive and IMA.

Key issues included the amendment of pleadings to allege collusion, the relevance of post-Contract B events to discovery and production, and the examination of a non-party representative.

The court affirmed that collusion must be properly pleaded to open up Contract B events for discovery and upheld the Master's finding of a constructive refusal to obtain information as a basis for ordering a non-party examination.

Following a prior finding of civil contempt for breaching a court order, the court conducted a sentencing hearing to determine the appropriate sanction.

The contemnor had continued to violate the order by disseminating derogatory online statements and contacting third parties despite the existing injunction.

The court reviewed the principles governing civil contempt sanctions, emphasizing deterrence, denunciation, proportionality, and the coercive purpose of enforcing compliance with court orders.

Although the contemnor apologized and undertook to comply going forward, the court noted a pattern of ongoing defiance and imposed a conditional sanction.

The contemnor was warned that any future breach would result in a 90‑day custodial sentence, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt under rule 60.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure alleging that the defendant breached an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the parties from publishing or communicating about each other and requiring removal of online postings.

Evidence showed the defendant continued communicating derogatory information about one plaintiff to third parties, including emails and contact with media, and failed to remove online postings.

The defendant acknowledged the communications and admitted guilt during submissions.

Applying the established test for civil contempt, the court held the order was clear, the defendant had knowledge of it, and he wilfully disobeyed it.

The court found the defendant in contempt and directed that sentencing be determined at a later hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction to restrain certain defendants from transferring or dissipating assets pending trial in an action alleging breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation arising from a failed financing arrangement.

The court considered the established test for Mareva injunctions, including the requirement of a strong prima facie case and the risk of dissipation of assets.

On the limited interim record, the court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a strong prima facie case at least with respect to breach of contract and an existing $80,000 judgment.

However, evidence of assets and risk of dissipation was limited.

The court granted a narrowly tailored interim interim Mareva injunction restraining dealings with specific real property owned by a corporate defendant and funds in a bank account held by an individual defendant pending a full hearing.