Rohan Devdatt Shah

The court considered a motion for default judgment brought by the plaintiff, Ranjani Venkataramani, against Abdulla Abdul Fatah, 5053767 Ontario Inc. (operating as Apolo and Co.), John Doe Construction Corp, and Golden Seal Construction Corp. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages arising from a failed home renovation.

The court granted partial default judgment for $80,000 against Apolo and the same amount jointly and severally against Apolo and Mr. Fatah under the Consumer Protection Act, but declined to award further damages for delay, lost rental income, additional interest, or punitive damages due to insufficient evidence.

The court also clarified the limited circumstances in which corporate officers can be held personally liable.

The decision addresses motions by First Trust Management AG, as Trustee of The Salus Rete Trust, to stay or dismiss two related actions on the basis that Ontario lacks jurisdiction or is not a convenient forum.

The court finds that the claims are adequately pleaded, that Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter based on several presumptive connecting factors (including contracts made in Ontario and torts committed in Ontario), and that Ontario is the most appropriate and convenient forum for the actions.

The motions are dismissed.

The defendant trustee of a Liechtenstein trust moved to stay or dismiss two related Ontario actions alleging fraud and misappropriation of funds, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was an inconvenient forum.

The plaintiffs resisted the motions, asserting that the funds used to settle the trust originated from Ontario and were transferred in breach of fiduciary duties.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because contracts connected to the dispute were executed in Ontario and the underlying torts of misappropriation occurred within the province.

The court also declined to stay the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens, concluding that Ontario was the most appropriate and efficient forum to resolve the claims.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file notices of appeal from two orders that dismissed her previous proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension, including intention to appeal, length of delay, prejudice to the responding parties, and the merits of the appeal.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay, obvious prejudice to the responding parties, and that the proposed appeals were devoid of merit, the court dismissed the motion.