Ronald Sleightholm

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment where the plaintiff was largely successful.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff against Mushtaq Raja, Minaj Transport Inc., Maryat Investments Inc., and Direct Ex Logistics Inc. The decision to award substantial indemnity costs was based on Mushtaq Raja's fraudulent conduct prior to and during the litigation, and the defendants' unproven allegations of fraud against the plaintiff.

The court declined to award costs to Munaza Raja and Janish Raja, despite their successful dismissal from the action, due to their minor roles and the lack of separate costs incurred on their behalf.

Specific cost amounts were determined for each paying defendant, with minor adjustments for Maryat Investments Inc. and Direct Ex Logistics Inc.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court refusing leave to appeal two costs orders.

The appellant argued the leave motion should have been heard orally rather than in writing.

The court held that a single judge of the Divisional Court does not have inherent or statutory jurisdiction to set aside an order of another single judge of the same court.

The motion was adjourned to a panel of the Divisional Court, which has the statutory authority to set aside a motion order of a single judge.

The plaintiff, Arif Hayat, brought an action against the defendants, Mushtaq Raja and his corporations, for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

Hayat advanced over $555,000 to Raja for investments in a trucking company and a restaurant venture.

Raja used corporate funds for personal expenses, falsely represented his own financial contributions, and fraudulently induced Hayat to resign as a director and surrender his shares in the restaurant corporation.

The court found Raja liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppressive conduct.

The court ordered Raja, Minaj Transport Inc., and Maryat Investments Inc. to pay Hayat $475,000, and ordered Direct Ex Logistics Inc. and Raja to repay a $36,179 loan and issue shares to Hayat.

The defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.

The respondent sought leave to appeal two costs decisions.

The motion judge had declined to award costs against the applicant, who withdrew her spousal support application, due to her inability to pay.

The motion judge also declined to order costs personally against the applicant's former counsel, finding the application was not frivolous or vexatious.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the issues did not meet the high threshold for leave under Rule 62.02 and the motion judge's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference.

This was a motion for leave to appeal two costs decisions.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the motion judge's decision not to award costs against the applicant personally, citing her financial inability to pay, and not to award costs against her former counsel for allegedly initiating a frivolous application or being in a conflict of interest.

The court denied leave, finding that while there might be doubt about the correctness of denying costs based solely on inability to pay, the matter was not of sufficient importance given the applicant's circumstances.

The court also deferred to the motion judge's findings that the application was not frivolous or vexatious and that counsel was not in a conflict of interest warranting personal costs.

The court addressed disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of Minutes of Settlement in estate litigation between family members and an estate trustee during litigation.

Following earlier endorsements clarifying settlement terms, the judge directed the parties to submit competing draft orders reflecting the intended disposition.

The principal issues concerned the timing of a payment obligation tied to a $500,000 amount from an estate interest and whether provisions addressing the estate trustee’s role should appear in the final order.

Applying a “final offer selection” approach, the court concluded that the draft orders proposed by the estate trustee most accurately reflected the settlement and prior endorsements.

The court therefore signed and entered those orders.

The appellant purchased a property six years after its first occupation and discovered significant water penetration and structural issues in the basement.

Before notifying Tarion, the appellant undertook extensive excavations and repairs costing over $250,000.

The Tribunal found that while two issues (an inadequately supported LVL beam and a knee wall) constituted major structural defects under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, the appellant's claim must fail.

By undertaking extensive self-help repairs before contacting Tarion, the appellant denied Tarion its statutory right to inspect the defects and determine the necessary scope of repairs.

Following the withdrawal of a spousal support application, the estate trustees of the deceased respondent sought a costs order jointly and severally against the applicant and her former lawyer.

The trustees alleged the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious and argued the lawyer had acted in conflict of interest and improperly initiated litigation despite knowing the claim had no chance of success.

The court considered Rules 12(3) and 24(9) of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing personal costs orders against counsel.

The court held the support claim was not clearly devoid of merit because statutory provisions permit setting aside domestic contracts in cases of unconscionability or lack of disclosure.

As the lawyer had acted on instructions and did not run up costs or abuse the court’s process, no personal costs order was warranted.

The plaintiff alleged medical negligence against an orthopaedic surgeon for failing to properly manage and refer a distal biceps tendon rupture in a timely manner, allegedly causing the plaintiff to lose the opportunity for surgical repair.

The court found that the physician diagnosed the condition, advised the patient of treatment options, and offered a referral to a specialist capable of performing the surgery, which the plaintiff declined pending MRI results for other issues.

The court concluded the physician met the applicable standard of care for a referring physician and that the plaintiff's evidence was not credible or reliable.

The court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove causation because there was no expert evidence establishing that earlier surgery would likely have resulted in a better outcome.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order discharging a lien registered by Legal Aid Ontario against a matrimonial home that had later vested in her pursuant to a family law judgment.

She argued the lien was void ab initio because it did not state a specific monetary amount, contrary to s. 48 of the Legal Aid Services Act, 1996 and provisions of the Land Titles Act.

The respondent maintained that the lien properly described the obligation as securing the full and actual cost of legal aid services provided pursuant to a contribution agreement with the applicant’s former spouse.

The court held that the contribution agreement contemplated payment of the full actual costs of services, with $5,000 being merely an estimate rather than a cap, and that the lien’s description therefore complied with the statutory requirements.

As the lien predated the vesting order and was validly registered, it could not be removed absent satisfaction of the debt.

The applicant mother sought an order permitting her to relocate with the parties' child from Halton Region to London, Ontario, to live with her fiancé.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it would negatively impact his relationship with the child.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that the move was in the child's best interests, as it would provide financial stability, greater educational support, and more quality time with the mother.

The mother was permitted to relocate with the child, subject to a specified access schedule for the father.

The appellant worked on his family's dairy farm for 24 years, alleging an oral agreement with his parents that he would receive the farm property and assets when they stopped farming.

After his father died without transferring the farm or changing his will, the appellant brought an action for a declaration of beneficial entitlement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no oral agreement due to the lack of signed documents and rejecting the application of the doctrine of part performance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by requiring written documents for an oral agreement and by incorrectly applying the doctrine of part performance.

A new trial was ordered on all issues.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims for oppression, breach of good faith, and misrepresentation regarding the cost base of certain shares.

The appellants alleged they were not informed that shares were acquired on a tax-deferred basis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the cost base was specifically listed in the circular, which the individual appellant had approved as a director and CFO.

The appeal was dismissed as entirely without merit, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their oppression claim against the respondents.

The claim was based on the respondent's refusal to appoint the individual appellant as a co-director of a corporation when he sought to exercise an option to re-acquire shares.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant had no statutory, contractual, or tort-based entitlement to a directorship.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim that the respondent's actions caused a corporation to lose its business and deprived him of management fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the corporation was placed in liquidation by consent court order, which required its replacement as general partner.

The loss of business was occasioned by the consent liquidation, not by any actions of the respondent.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the action as an abuse of process, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court had previously determined that the action constituted a collateral attack on earlier decisions of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal and that allegations of conflict of interest and improper conduct against counsel were unsupported by evidence.

The court found that the plaintiff made serious and unfounded allegations impugning the professional integrity of a lawyer and effectively advanced a conspiracy claim without evidentiary foundation.

Given the abusive nature of the proceeding and the seriousness of the unsupported allegations, substantial indemnity costs were warranted.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in significant amounts inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a corporate transaction involving the acquisition of a golf course company.

The plaintiffs alleged oppression under the Alberta Business Corporations Act, breach of directors’ duty of good faith, misrepresentation concerning the adjusted cost base of shares, and reimbursement of legal fees.

The court held that the claim relating to legal fees was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process given earlier appellate findings.

On the merits, the court found no oppression, breach of duty, or misrepresentation, noting that the relevant share cost base was disclosed in the transaction circular and the defendants’ dual roles were known and approved by shareholders.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch, the court concluded the action was entirely without merit.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging misconduct related to the loss of a company’s role as general partner of hotel-related limited partnerships.

The plaintiff alleged inducing breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of corporate opportunities after a replacement general partner associated with one defendant was elected following the winding up of the original corporate general partner.

The court held that the claims constituted a collateral attack on earlier court orders confirming the liquidation and the process for electing a new general partner, rendering the action res judicata and an abuse of process.

The court also found no evidence of wrongdoing by the defendants and no proof of damages arising from their conduct.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing an oppression claim brought by shareholders of a corporation operating hospitality assets through related partnerships.

The responding parties alleged that refusal to appoint one shareholder as a director and unilateral management decisions constituted oppression and unfair prejudice.

The court applied the summary judgment framework articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch and considered the reasonable expectations analysis for oppression claims under corporate legislation.

It held that the evidence disclosed no reasonable expectation that the shareholder would be appointed as a director and no conduct amounting to oppression.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.

The applicant moved for leave to appeal an interim spousal support order and for a stay of the award.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment, considering late-filed materials, and awarding retrospective support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance.