Rohit Ramesh Kumar

The plaintiff claimed ownership of either 50% or 33.3% of a meat retail business (Robert's Boxed Meats) operated through a numbered company.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement in 1997 whereby he and the defendant would be equal 50% owners, or alternatively, that share purchase and escrow agreements from 1996-1997 preserved a 33.3% interest in the company held in escrow.

The court found no credible evidence of the alleged oral agreement and determined that the plaintiff's alternative claim for 33.3% ownership was statute-barred under the applicable limitations legislation.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim for delivery of the escrowed shares for cancellation.

The court granted the motion by the defendants Mario Cortis and MediHub International Inc. for security for costs, ordering $80,000 to be posted by the plaintiff, John Davis, but stayed the order for 90 days due to evidence that Davis may imminently return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal test for security for costs, the relevance and admissibility of new evidence, and the balancing of interests between the parties.

The court found that Davis had not demonstrated that an order for security for costs would be unjust, and that the amount sought by the defendants was excessive, setting a lower amount.

The ruling also addresses delay, bad faith allegations, and the complexity of the case.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendants, Paul Kennedy and Leanne Kennedy, to set aside a prior judgment.

The court found the defendants' motion to be vexatious, based on manipulation of facts, regurgitation of previously rejected issues, and defiance of court orders.

Citing a long history of such litigation conduct, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, emphasizing that such costs serve as a chastisement and deterrent for improper and unnecessary litigation.

The court ordered the Kennedys to pay $70,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The Kennedys (Defendants) brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside a default judgment rendered nearly 11 years prior, arguing that their former representative, Trent Bridger, sabotaged their defense through misrepresentation and that the damages calculation was faulty due to the Plaintiffs' incomplete disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Kennedys were aware of Bridger's communications, that Justice Frank had already rejected the "stolen records" excuse, and that the significant delay in bringing the motion was unjustified.

The court also held that the Kennedys could not now demand a full accounting given their persistent failure to comply with prior disclosure orders.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim to include Cara Vaccarino as a defendant and requested an order for the mirroring of her electronic devices and email account to preserve confidential and proprietary information.

This request arose after it was discovered that another defendant, Ms. Anderson, had forwarded confidential information to Ms. Vaccarino.

Despite Ms. Vaccarino's assertion that she did not recall opening or using the email, the court found it appropriate to order the mirroring to preserve evidence and determine the use of the information.

The court ordered the mirroring to cover the period from June 1, 2023, to the present, with counsel to coordinate the least disruptive process.

The Applicant, Illumina Holdings Inc., sought immediate payment of $254,195 plus interest from the Respondents, BrandAlliance Inc. and A Brand Company Inc., based on a share purchase Letter Agreement.

The Respondents brought a counter-application seeking rectification of the Letter Agreement due to alleged valuation errors and a declaration that Arora, Illumina's owner and former CFO of BrandAlliance, breached his fiduciary duties.

Alternatively, the Respondents sought consolidation, trial, or arbitration.

The court found the Letter Agreement binding and enforceable, rejecting the Respondents' claims for rectification, breach of fiduciary duty, and arguments for a trial or arbitration.

The court also found that the Respondents' claims were largely statute-barred and that A Brand Company Inc. was liable due to a merger with BrandAlliance.

Bell Canada brought an application seeking declarations, an injunction, and a mandatory order against Cloudwifi Inc. and Gary Kenning for allegedly wrongful access and use of Bell's telecommunications equipment and breach of a prior settlement agreement.

Cloudwifi responded with a motion to dismiss or stay Bell's application, asserting the CRTC's exclusive jurisdiction, and a cross-application seeking declarations and damages against Bell.

The court dismissed Cloudwifi's motion to stay as moot due to a prior CRTC decision.

It found that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the regulatory aspects of equipment access, but the court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the alleged breach of the settlement agreement.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Bell's application, finding no breach of the settlement agreement and declining to issue declarations on regulatory matters.

Cloudwifi's cross-application was also dismissed, as it was conditional on the motion's outcome and involved claims better suited for an action.

The appellant sought leave to amend his Statement of Claim to assert an alternative claim for a 33% ownership interest in the corporation, based on the theory that escrow release conditions had not been satisfied.

The motion judge denied the amendment, finding it constituted a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proposed amendments did not assert a new cause of action but rather sought alternative relief based on material facts already pleaded in the original Statement of Claim.

The court found no presumed or actual non-compensable prejudice to the respondents.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his Statement of Claim to include an alternative claim for a 33.3% ownership interest in the defendant corporation, based on written agreements, and to expand his oppression remedy claim to include his status as a creditor.

The court denied leave for the 33.3% ownership claim, finding it constituted a new cause of action barred by the limitation period, as it was based on a different factual matrix than the original 50% ownership claim.

However, leave was granted to amend the oppression remedy claim to include 'and/or creditor,' as this was deemed an alternative legal conclusion arising from the same factual matrix already pleaded.

This is a costs ruling following a successful application by Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 627 to enforce an arbitration agreement and award against the Grandview respondents, and to set aside a solicitors' charging order claimed by Blaney McMurtry LLP.

The applicant sought costs on various scales against both sets of respondents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the Grandview respondents for their failure to comply with the arbitration agreement and award, and partial indemnity costs against Blaney McMurtry LLP as the unsuccessful party regarding the charging order.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration agreement and award, which required the transfer of property from the developer respondents free of encumbrances.

The respondent law firm, Blaney McMurtry LLP, opposed this, asserting a valid solicitors' charging order over the same property for unpaid legal fees.

The court considered whether to set aside or vary the charging orders and whether to enforce the arbitration award.

The court found that the charging orders improperly covered property not "recovered or preserved" through the solicitors' work and set them aside as against the transfers to the condominium.

Consequently, the arbitration agreement and award were enforced and incorporated into a judgment.