Satish Mandalagiri

The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction (freezing order) against the defendants' assets, alleging that the defendants received fraudulent conveyances from Navdeep Boparai, who had been found liable for defrauding the plaintiffs of approximately $1.6 million.

The defendants argued that the statement of claim should be struck as lacking particulars.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance, a serious risk of asset dissipation, and irreparable harm.

The court rejected the defendants' argument regarding particulars, finding the pleadings sufficient.

Costs of $50,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a trial where the Plaintiff, 2599475 Ontario Inc., was successful in proving the cause of a truck engine failure.

The Plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $17,038.68, while the Defendant, 2549445 Ontario Inc. trading as House of Diesel, argued for a reduction, citing the Plaintiff's lower recovery than initially sought and the Defendant's partial success on damages and in resisting a summary judgment motion.

The court awarded the Plaintiff $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding the quantum generally reasonable but applying a modest reduction due to the Plaintiff having advanced duplicative and unjustified damage claims.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff following a slip and fall on their property.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendants failed to act promptly, offered no plausible explanation for their two-year delay, and lacked an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff lessor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant lessees for arrears of rent owing under two equipment leases for a truck and a trailer.

The defendants defaulted on payments and argued that mechanical issues with the truck frustrated the lease and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the lease terms explicitly placed the burden of repairs on the lessees and the plaintiff had no duty to mitigate a claim for a fixed debt.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment where the plaintiffs were awarded $94,874.27, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made an offer to settle that triggered the costs consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court found the requested fees and hourly rates to be reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were fixed at $26,355.17 all inclusive, payable by the defendant.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing their "Exclusivity Agreement" with the defendant was a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act, requiring disclosure which was not provided.

The defendant contended it was not a franchise.

The court found the agreement constituted a franchise based on payment requirements, trademark association, and significant control exercised by the defendant.

Consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to rescission due to non-disclosure and damages for loss of income and moving expenses.

Claims for misrepresentation and other business expenses were dismissed or required further proof at trial.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to restore the matter to the trial list.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, which carefully considered the relevant facts and issues, including prejudice, and properly applied the correct legal test.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.