Rohit Ramesh Kumar

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of two decisions by City Council to sanction him based on reports from the Integrity Commissioner.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached the Code of Conduct by making disparaging comments in emails and by disclosing confidential complaint forms to other councillors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding no procedural unfairness in the investigations, no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Integrity Commissioner or City Council, and that the findings and sanctions were reasonable.

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.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they engaged in a course of conduct that perpetrated a fraud on investors by raising funds for a specific real estate project and diverting them for other purposes.

The Tribunal ordered administrative fines, disgorgement, costs, and permanent market bans with a limited carve-out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Tribunal's liability findings or sanctions.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a July 2, 2024 decision of Justice Black.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the single issue of whether the Anton Piller order was correctly enlarged to include the business and phone computer of one of the moving parties.

Leave to appeal on all other issues was dismissed.

The court also granted a stay of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the underlying order pending the appeal, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Wilkinson J. dated July 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

In an ongoing family law dispute, the court addressed several issues regarding the court-ordered sale of eight properties.

The respondent brought a motion to vary the order to sell the properties, arguing they were no longer required to pay the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's continued obstructive conduct and the uncertainty of receivership costs and tax liabilities.

The court also established a mechanism for the applicant to obtain vesting orders if the respondent obstructed the sales, directed a trial of an issue regarding the validity of third-party mortgages, and refused to release sale proceeds to the respondent's company until the applicant was fully paid.

The appellants appealed an associate judge's order dismissing their action for delay at a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The delay was primarily caused by the appellants' trial counsel inadvertently missing the mandatory mediation requirement, which prevented the filing of the trial record before the five-year deadline.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the associate judge committed palpable and overriding error by treating the missed mediation as a mere technical misstep and failing to consider the overall justice of the case, especially given the lack of prejudice to the respondents and the fact that the action was brought to enforce a $12,000,000 default judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an employment contract, claiming entitlement to a 1.5% equity stake in the defendant limited partnership.

The parties disputed the nature of the agreement, the entity in which the equity was held, and the value of the shares, relying on conflicting pre-employment emails and formal documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence and lack of valuation data created genuine issues of credibility and fact that required a trial.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after the respondent landlord issued a notice of default for unpaid additional rent and utility arrears.

The tenant had withheld payment of the disputed amounts pending arbitration, arguing the landlord failed to properly substantiate the charges.

The court held that the tenant was in breach of the lease, as the lease contained a 'no deduction' clause requiring payment of rent without set-off pending arbitration.

The court declined to grant relief from forfeiture pending arbitration, finding the tenant's conduct wilful, but granted a temporary 20-day relief period for the tenant to cure the default by paying all arrears.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the deadline for setting the action down for trial.

The action, commenced in 2014 to enforce a 2013 default judgment, had seen no steps taken by the plaintiffs for 30 months between 2016 and 2019.

Applying the conjunctive test for delay, the Master found that while the defendants would not suffer significant prejudice, the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the lengthy delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

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.

Following the dismissal of Bell Canada's application, Cloudwifi's motion to dismiss/stay, and Cloudwifi's cross-application, both parties sought costs.

Bell sought partial indemnity costs of $122,572.78, and Cloudwifi sought $116,145.76.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

Bell was not entitled to costs as its application was dismissed.

Cloudwifi was denied costs despite its success on the jurisdictional issue because its actions in unlawfully utilizing Bell's equipment amounted to significant misconduct.

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 parties made written submissions on costs following a motion where the plaintiff sought leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

Success on the motion was divided; the plaintiff was unsuccessful on the primary issue but successful on two subsidiary issues.

The court found the defendants were the more successful parties but reduced their costs award by 50% to reflect their failure to consent to the amendments on which the plaintiff succeeded.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants $6,000 in costs.

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.