Samir Singh Chhina

A motion was brought under s. 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act for an order requiring an elderly party, aged 92, residing in a secure memory care facility, to undergo a cognitive capacity assessment.

The subject had been diagnosed with moderate stage dementia and had a documented history of confusion, memory deficits, and failed capacity screening.

He opposed the motion by affidavit, asserting his capacity.

The court applied the two-part threshold under s. 105(3) and the factors from Abrams v. Abrams, finding ample evidence of significant cognitive deficits and that capacity was a material issue in both the action and a related application.

The motion was granted, and a concurrent stay of a related motion to remove the moving party as litigation guardian was ordered pending the outcome of the assessment.

The moving party sought to set aside on consent a trial judgment declaring that it was not a bona fide purchaser without notice of a residential property.

The trial judge had made significant negative credibility findings against witnesses called on behalf of the moving party and its predecessor in title.

The Court of Appeal refused to allow the appeal on consent, holding that courts cannot set aside judgments based solely on party agreement without considering whether doing so would be appropriate in light of the law and facts, and whether it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found that setting aside the judgment, which incorporated findings of misconduct, would undermine the administration of justice.

This decision addresses the determination of costs following an omnibus judgment in a protracted family and civil litigation spanning ten years.

The court fixed costs for three main issues: a dispute with a bailiff, claims between the Applicant and the Respondent/his mother, and an action against Abrahams LLP.

The court applied both Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure principles, emphasizing that successful parties are entitled to costs and that egregious or reprehensible conduct warrants full or substantial indemnity.

The Respondent and his mother were found to have engaged in abusive litigation conduct, leading to significant cost awards against them, while the Applicant was ordered to pay the bailiff's costs for an improper motion.

This decision provides case management directions in a complex, multi-action family law matter.

The court addressed the status of an appeal and enforcement of previous judgments regarding equalization and spousal support, noting that payments had been made.

It granted counsel's motion to get off the record and set a timetable for future motions concerning a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), leave to bring tort actions (abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering), and spousal support arrears.

The court emphasized that previously decided matters, including equalization, were final and not open for re-argument.

Strict communication protocols with the court were reiterated, with a warning against contempt.

This case concerns an application by Kelly Martin to set aside the sale of her home following a default judgment for foreclosure.

Martin had lost her home due to a missed $650 mortgage payment and subsequent actions by the mortgagee, 11037315 Canada Inc. (110), and the purchaser, 2670082 Ontario Corp. (267).

The Court of Appeal had previously set aside the default judgment but ordered a trial of an issue to determine if 267 was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice that Martin occupied the property and had a potential claim to set aside the default judgment.

The court found that 267 was not a bona fide purchaser, as its principal (Mangal) and solicitor (Dhillon) had actual notice of Martin's occupancy and potential claim, evidenced by the rapid, below-market sale, the prior aborted sale to another entity, and defects in the foreclosure process.

Consequently, the sale of the property to 267 was set aside.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to find Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc. in contempt of court for failing to attend an examination in aid of execution and for failing to produce specified documents.

The court found that the contempt for non-attendance was purged by the subsequent payment of costs.

Regarding document production, despite skepticism about the completeness of disclosure, the court determined that the Plaintiffs did not meet the high burden of proving a "deliberate and flagrant breach" beyond a reasonable doubt.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renewal on new evidence.

This motion concerned applications by the Dallas Defendants and Mangal Defendants to withdraw deemed admissions arising from their failure to respond to a Request to Admit from the Plaintiffs.

The court applied a three-part test, considering whether the proposed amendments raised a triable issue, if the admission was inadvertent, and if withdrawal would cause uncompensable prejudice.

The court found that the moving parties failed to establish a triable issue regarding property valuation, notice of power of sale, or Ms. Dallas's authority.

While counsel claimed inadvertence, the delay in bringing the motion after being alerted to the issue was unexplained.

Significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, including delays and costs, was identified.

The court also noted the moving parties' inconsistent positions on property valuation in a related proceeding.

Considering all circumstances, the motions to withdraw deemed admissions were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs under Rule 56.01.

The court found that the plaintiff Alexandra Tang was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and that the plaintiffs (including the corporations) lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential cost award.

However, the motion was dismissed due to the defendants' obstructive conduct during cross-examinations regarding the merits of the claim, their "hardball litigation" tactics, and significant delay in bringing the motion.

The court emphasized that the merits of the claim are relevant, especially when impecuniosity is not alleged, and that the defendants' conduct prejudiced the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate their case's merits.

This costs endorsement addresses the failure of the Respondent, Stewart Wilson, to pay outstanding costs awards to the Applicant, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari.

The court clarified the specific amounts owing from previous orders, including interest, and directed Mr. Wilson to pay a total of $80,377.22.

The court also ruled that payments should be made to the Applicant's counsel in trust, rather than directly to the Applicant, due to the contentious nature of the case.

The court declined to enforce costs awards from the Court of Appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

No costs were awarded for the submissions themselves due to both parties' non-compliance with court directions.

The moving party, Stewart Wilson, sought an extension of time to appeal a May 2021 judgment that ordered him to pay substantial spousal support, an equalization payment, and costs.

This judgment was rendered after an uncontested trial, as Mr. Wilson's pleadings had been struck due to contempt for failing to provide financial disclosure.

Mr. Wilson had also brought a separate motion under Rule 59.06(2) alleging the May 2021 judgment was obtained by fraud, which was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the proposed appeal was from an unopposed order and that the grounds for appeal were duplicative of the already litigated Rule 59.06 motion, which would create a multiplicity of proceedings contrary to the interests of justice.

The appellant's property was sold under power of sale.

She initiated an action alleging conspiracy to defraud and moved to set aside the sale, claiming fraud and improvidence.

The motion judge dismissed all claims except for an accounting by the mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no direct or circumstantial evidence of fraud, and that the sale was not improvident, especially considering the appellant's history of default and delay.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal previously rejected the appellants' claim to overturn the setting aside of a default foreclosure judgment but set aside the application judge's order for sale, directing a trial on whether one appellant (2670082 Ontario Corp.) was protected by the Land Titles Act.

In this costs decision, the Court found the respondent (Kelly Martin) wholly successful against one appellant (11037315 Canada Inc.) and awarded her partial indemnity costs.

The other appellant (2670082 Ontario Corp.) achieved partial success on appeal, and costs between 2670082 Ontario Corp. and the respondent were fixed but made payable in the cause of the future trial.

The appellants' overall request for substantial costs was rejected as excessive.

The appellants appealed an order setting aside a default judgment for foreclosure and possession.

The Court of Appeal upheld the setting aside of the default judgment based on equitable principles and irregular obtainment (lack of notice of assignment).

However, the court found the application judge erred in determining whether the subsequent purchaser (2670082 Ontario Corp.) was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice under the Land Titles Act, as the finding was based on constructive rather than actual knowledge.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the order for sale and ordering a trial to determine if the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice, which would affect their title.

This decision is a costs endorsement following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs from the defendants Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc., who opposed the CPL motion.

The court found the plaintiffs presumptively entitled to costs as the successful parties on a distinct procedural step.

Applying Rule 49.10, the court determined that the defendants' failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle, which included a compromise regarding the CPL's duration, warranted substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants' uncooperative conduct during litigation also contributed to the decision.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in substantial indemnity costs, to be paid jointly and severally by the opposing defendants.

The defendants moved to set aside a noting in default, which the plaintiff did not substantively oppose but contested on costs.

The court granted the motion, finding the defendants' delay in defending was adequately explained and they had arguable defences.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' partial indemnity costs of the motion, deeming the plaintiff's refusal to consent to setting aside default without substantial indemnity costs for a prior ex parte substituted service motion unreasonable and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property, alleging an unconscionable mortgage transaction and fraud.

The defendants Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc. opposed, claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice.

The court applied the two-part test for CPLs, finding a triable claim to an interest in land and that the balance of factors favored granting the CPL, particularly due to the defendants' lack of credible evidence and questionable conduct regarding the property's transfer and value.

The moving parties (appellants) sought an order setting aside the Registrar’s dismissal of their appeal and an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The responding party (respondent) requested an adjournment to file responding materials, which was granted.

The motion judge also addressed the arguable jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the appeal, noting that the underlying orders had both interlocutory and final elements, and that leave to appeal might not be required given the interrelationship of the issues, citing relevant case law.

The motion was adjourned to a new date to allow the responding party to prepare.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application where the Applicant successfully set aside a default judgment in a foreclosure action, and a subsequent unsuccessful motion by one of the Respondents to vary that order based on new evidence.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs against one respondent and its director, and partial indemnity from another.

The court assessed the costs based on factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, declining to pierce the corporate veil to award costs against a non-party director.

The court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs for the original application, apportioned between two respondents, and an additional $7,500 for the motion to vary, payable by one respondent.