Sajid Hossain

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered motions to set aside an administrative dismissal of an appeal and to extend the time to perfect the appeal, as well as a cross-motion for conditions to protect assets pending appeal.

The court granted both the motion and cross-motion, reinstating the appeal and imposing conditions to address the risk of asset dissipation.

The decision discusses the relevant factors for setting aside an administrative dismissal and for granting an extension of time, including the merits of the appeal, the explanation for delay, and the best interests of the children.

The court also imposed specific conditions to ensure transparency and protect the respondent’s interests.

This costs endorsement follows the successful motion by Batavia Developments Inc. to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs, relying on a contractual provision and the conduct of the defendant, Mr. Mohsini.

The court found no reason to depart from the contractual term and awarded the full amount sought.

Following the dismissal of a guardianship application, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant had abandoned his claims on the eve of the hearing after failing to undermine a court-ordered capacity assessment of his mother.

The court found the applicant's procedural complaints insufficient to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $100,000 each to his sister and mother on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought an application seeking to remove his sister and mother as attorneys for his parents and to be appointed as his father's guardian.

On the eve of the hearing, the applicant abandoned his challenges to his parents' capacity and powers of attorney, instead seeking declarations regarding financial impropriety and an accounting.

The court dismissed the application, finding that without a challenge to capacity or the powers of attorney, there were no cognizable causes of action remaining and the applicant had no legal basis to compel an accounting or seek abstract declarations.

The plaintiff, Batavia Developments Inc., brought a motion under Rule 6.01 to consolidate its action with an application launched by the defendant, Shakoor Mohsini.

The defendant opposed consolidation and sought a stay of the action.

The court found that the action and application arose from the same real estate transaction and involved common questions of law and fact, requiring expert evidence and resolution of conflicting evidence.

The court determined that the matter could not be properly decided on a paper record and that examinations under oath were necessary.

The plaintiff's motion for consolidation was granted, and the defendant's motion for a stay was denied, with the application being converted into an action.