Sahil Kesar

This decision concerns competing applications for declaratory relief between the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of Canada and the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America regarding membership and voting rights in the Canadian corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s finding that a 2015 bylaw creating two classes of members (one voting, one non-voting) remained in force, and that a subsequent attempt to restore voting rights to personal members via federal continuance was ultra vires without a special resolution.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions to reconsider its earlier refusal to grant leave to appeal two decisions related to an arbitral award and its enforcement.

Dr. Bokhari argued that the panel may have been unaware that a key precedent (Aroma) was under reserve at the time of the refusal.

The court held that the relevant rules did not permit reconsideration based on subsequent jurisprudence, only on new facts, and that the interests of justice did not favour reconsideration.

The motions were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions to reconsider its earlier refusal to grant leave to appeal two decisions related to an arbitral award and its enforcement.

Dr. Bokhari argued that the panel may have been unaware that a key precedent (Aroma) was under reserve at the time of the refusal.

The court held that the relevant rules did not permit reconsideration based on subsequent jurisprudence, only on new facts, and that the interests of justice did not favour reconsideration.

The motions were dismissed.

Following a successful appeal against the respondent Samir Chhina, the self-represented appellants sought costs of $35,000 for the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued the appellants failed to establish they had forgone remunerative activity to justify a fee allowance.

The Court of Appeal agreed the appellants did not meet their evidentiary onus but awarded a lump sum of $10,000 all-inclusive for costs of the motion and the appeal.

The appellants sought a panel review of a single judge's decision dismissing their motion for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The underlying action against Dominion Lending Centres Inc. and others for alleged mortgage fraud was dismissed by the Superior Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the single judge dismissed the motion solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the single judge explicitly found the grounds of appeal devoid of merit and the lower court's reasons cogent.

The motion for panel review was dismissed with costs.

This decision concerns the interpretation of a “Material Adverse Change” (MAC) clause in a governance agreement between Simpson Oil Limited (SOL) and Parkland Corporation.

The court found that the departures of Parkland’s CFO and a majority of its senior management constituted a MAC under the agreement, thereby lifting restrictions on SOL’s voting and acquisition rights.

The decision turns on whether certain events listed in the MAC definition are mandatory triggers or merely illustrative, and the court concludes they are mandatory.

This decision concerns a motion by Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc. to discharge or reduce a construction lien registered by Scott Steel Erectors Inc. in relation to the Magino Gold Mine project.

The court addresses whether Scott Steel could register a lien for work performed under multiple subcontracts, including work by a related entity, Scott Concrete Services Inc., and whether the lien was willfully exaggerated by the inclusion of delay damages.

The court finds that there is a triable issue regarding the application of promissory estoppel and the treatment of the subcontracts "as one," but holds that there is no triable issue as to delay damages under certain subcontracts.

The lien is reduced to $23,670,377.46 plus HST.

The appellants appealed an order striking their claims against a mortgage brokerage and a lawyer under Rule 21.01.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the brokerage, finding no factual connection pleaded.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the lawyer, holding that the motion judge erred in finding the lawyer immune from liability for allegedly participating in a fraud while acting on client instructions, and erred in concluding the claim was barred by res judicata without sufficient evidence that the same cause of action was previously argued.

This decision resolves a dispute between the Canadian and American branches of the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council regarding the voting membership structure of the Canadian not-for-profit corporation.

The court found that the 2015 by-law, which created two classes of members with the U.S. entity as the sole voting member, remains in force.

The 2021 attempt to change the membership structure via federal articles of continuance was invalid, as it was not authorized by a special resolution of members.

The application by the Canadian company was dismissed, and a declaration was issued confirming the U.S. entity as the sole voting member.

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs sought over $20 million in damages for alleged mortgage and syndicate fraud, naming numerous defendants including opposing counsel from previous proceedings.

The court found the statement of claim lacked a plausible cause of action, constituted a collateral attack on prior judgments, and was poorly pleaded.

The court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed it without costs.

The registrar's office referred this action to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) following a request from the defendant, Dominion Lending Centres Inc. The court reviewed the statement of claim and found it potentially frivolous and vexatious.

Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiffs be given notice (Form 2.1A) and an opportunity to make written submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed.

Pending the outcome of this written hearing, the action was stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no further filings would be accepted from the plaintiffs except for their submissions.

The plaintiff, self-represented, brought a claim against the defendants concerning the 2008 acquisition of Aurelian Resources Inc. by Kinross Gold Corporation, alleging conspiracy, share price manipulation, wrongful acquisition of shares, and concealment.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous/frivolous/vexatious/abuse of process, and being time-barred.

The court struck the claim in its entirety for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action due to lack of material facts and proper pleading of elements.

Claims arising directly from the 2008 acquisition were also struck as time-barred.

However, the court granted leave to amend the non-time-barred portions of the claim, acknowledging the plaintiff's self-represented status and misunderstanding of pleading rules.