Sabrina Waraich

This is a costs decision following a nine-day trial in a breach of contract case concerning the distribution of proceeds from the 2012 sale of a company owned by the parties.

The plaintiff was awarded $405,199 out of a total claim of $2,319,567, representing only 18% of the amount claimed.

The plaintiff succeeded on one of three main issues (the distribution of profits after the 2012 sale) but failed on the validity/enforceability of amending agreements and the allocation of salaries.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff as the successful party, but reduced the amount to account for the time and resources spent on unsuccessful issues.

Two business partners who built a successful commercial cleaning company and sold it for over $20 million in 2012 disputed the distribution of sale proceeds and allocation of profits.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of shareholder amending agreements signed in 2002 and 2009 that altered profit-sharing arrangements for newly established divisions.

The court found the agreements valid and enforceable but determined the defendant breached the agreements by unilaterally calculating the allocation of sale proceeds using revenue rather than profit as the basis, and by failing to involve the company's chartered accountant as required.

The court awarded the plaintiff $405,199 representing the overpayment to the defendant from the improper allocation methodology.

Claims regarding salary allocations were dismissed as statute-barred.

The Plaintiffs, Hassan Siddiqui and Sara Al-Ahmar, sought summary judgment against real estate agents and their agencies (Gyanesh Paliwal, Re-Max Realty Specialists Inc., Sanjay Bhayana, and World Class Realty Point) to recover commissions and a premium paid in an assignment of a pre-construction home purchase.

The underlying purchase agreement was not completed by the builder, who returned the deposit but not the premium or commissions.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled with the original assignor, Haarikka Sivanarayan.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding no contractual basis for recovery from the real estate agents as the Plaintiffs did not directly pay the commissions, and the assignor was responsible for them.

Furthermore, the court found no unjust enrichment as there was no direct deprivation of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the agents' enrichment.

The applicant employer sought judicial review to quash an arbitrator's interim order compelling it to produce documents for a full audit by the respondent union.

The union brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as premature.

The court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review, agreeing with the union that the application was premature because the arbitrator's order was an interim award that did not resolve the grievance on its merits.

The court emphasized that judicial review of interim orders is only available in very narrow "exceptional circumstances," which were not met here, and found no significant harm to the employer from the ordered production and audit.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Plaintiff successfully sought to stay a related fraudulent conveyance action.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the Defendant's position was weak and that a reasonable offer to settle was made.

The Defendant sought to defer costs or have them dismissed.

The court declined to defer costs, finding the Plaintiff successful on the motion.

It awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,000.00 to the Plaintiff, determining that while the Plaintiff's offer was reasonable, it did not trigger Rule 49 consequences, and the Defendant's conduct, though based on a tenuous argument, was not abusive or egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity.

In an action for fraud and breach of contract arising from a relationship between the plaintiff and a former escort, the parties brought motions to resolve various discovery disputes.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce notes used as an aide memoire during his examination for discovery.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to disclose documents relating to his separation agreement, finding that he had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind regarding the transfer of funds in issue.

The defendant's request to examine the plaintiff's wife as a non-party witness was dismissed as unnecessary for the pending motion.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for a Mareva injunction.

The Plaintiff had brought a second Mareva injunction motion, which was largely resolved on an uncontested basis.

The parties disagreed on whether the resulting order was on consent and who should bear the costs.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Defendant sought costs against the Plaintiff, including personally against his counsel, alleging improper transfers of funds.

The court found the Defendant to be the successful party on the motion, though with mixed success, and awarded her $7,500.00 in partial indemnity costs from the Plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the Plaintiff's counsel personally, emphasizing the high threshold for such awards.

The court fixed costs for a successful motion to strike brought by the plaintiff.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs, but the court limited the award to partial indemnity, finding no conduct warranting enhanced costs.

Considering the motion's simplicity, discrete issues, and some duplication in counsel's work, the court awarded the amount the plaintiff was prepared to pay, $3,606.50, as reasonable partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs for a pre-discovery document production motion in a case-managed proceeding.

The defendant, who sought additional document production, was deemed the more successful party, though not entirely successful.

The plaintiff's unreasonable positions regarding document relevance and production obligations were found to have lengthened the motion.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments against a costs award based on the informal, letter-based process or the defendant's prior unpaid costs orders.

Partial indemnity costs of $1,000.00 were awarded to the defendant, with the possibility of set-off against any costs owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

In a case management motion regarding pre-discovery production, the defendant sought various financial, communication, and personal records from the plaintiff.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraud and breach of contract arising from a relationship that began with the defendant providing sexual services to the plaintiff.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce bank statements, credit card statements, communications records, and tax notices of assessment from 2014 to 2019, finding them relevant to the disputed timeline of the relationship.

Requests for broader financial records and documents relating to the plaintiff's separation from his wife were narrowed or deferred.

The offender, a lawyer and real estate developer, was convicted of two counts of theft over $5000 for misappropriating approximately $1.8 million in mortgage proceeds from two jointly-owned corporate projects.

The court found the offender abused her position of trust as a corporate director and engaged in a sophisticated pattern of collateral dishonesty to cover up the thefts.

Applying the principles of general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale commercial frauds, the court sentenced the offender to three years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of $220,286 in lieu of forfeiture.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment seeking to have the respondents' action declared statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The critical issue was whether the respondent lender, Trez Capital, had knowledge of the appellants' ownership interest in the project corporations prior to the expiration of the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge conducted a mini-trial on the disputed question of what was disclosed during a September 13, 2013 telephone call between the respondent's representative and Trez's representative.

The motion judge preferred the evidence of Trez's representative and found that the appellants' ownership interest was not disclosed during that call, thereby rejecting the limitation defence.

The appellants appealed on multiple grounds, including that the motion judge made findings beyond what was necessary to determine the motion, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and erred in law regarding the limitations period analysis.