Sandeep Singh

The defendant, a real estate appraiser, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant negligently appraised a property, causing a buyer's bank to refuse financing and the sale to fall through.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding it plain and obvious the claim would fail because the appraiser owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The appraisal was prepared solely for the buyer's bank, and the plaintiff did not rely on it.

The applicant filed an application for judicial review in the Divisional Court, seeking to review a decision by the Executive Legal Officer of the Court of Appeal to delist its appeal for failing to post security for costs.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the application was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked legal merit because the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of the Court of Appeal, which is a superior court of record.

Furthermore, the court noted that court administrators have the authority to manage court lists and the delisting was a direct consequence of the applicant's failure to comply with a court order to post security for costs.

The appellant, 9383859 Canada Ltd., failed to comply with orders to post security for costs for two groups of respondents (the Ramesh Respondents and the Saeed Respondents).

These respondents brought motions under Rule 61.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the appeal.

The court denied the appellant's request for an adjournment and dismissed the appeals, finding no valid excuse for non-compliance and that the original security for costs orders were properly made due to the appellant's insufficient assets and weak grounds of appeal.

The court declined to award costs personally against Sandeep Singh, the appellant's sole shareholder and director, finding his litigation strategy did not amount to an abuse of process.

The appellant, 9383859 Canada Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its actions for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The respondents, Kubeskaran Navaratnam, Ronald Lachmansingh, and Marilyn Reiter Nemetz, brought motions to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with a security for costs order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motions, dismissing the appeal.

The court found that the appellant had not provided compelling reasons for its non-compliance and that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal, given the appellant's lack of assets and the manifest weakness of the underlying appeal.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful Rule 21 motion brought by the defendants.

The court applied the principles of costs awards, including the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs.

The defendants were wholly successful on the underlying motion, and their requested costs were found to be proportionate and within the parties' expectations.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity amounts to each successful defendant, payable by the plaintiff.

The defendant lawyers, Kubeskran Navaratnam, Marilyn Reiter-Nemetz, and Ronald Lachmansingh, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff, 9383859 Canada Ltd., alleged negligence and false statements against the lawyers who represented adverse parties in a failed real estate transaction and subsequent litigation.

The court found that lawyers generally owe no duty of care to opposing parties, especially when the opposing party is represented by their own counsel.

The court also held that statements made in pleadings are protected by absolute immunity and that the claims were statute-barred.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the claims against the defendant lawyers were struck without leave to amend, as they were deemed radically defective, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.