Sandeep Singh

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.