Satish Mandalagiri

The moving party sought an extension of time of approximately 18 months to apply for judicial review of a labour arbitration award regarding compensation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the explanation for the delay weak, doubtful apparent grounds for relief given the union's refusal to pursue judicial review, and substantial prejudice to the respondents due to the lengthy delay and the importance of finality in labour relations.

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.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting her for allegedly threatening a staff member.

The tenant had missed the initial hearing due to a sincere belief that paying a filing fee would resolve the matter, but the LTB denied her request for a review hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that procedural fairness and the broad interpretation of being 'reasonably able to participate' required granting a rehearing on the merits given the tenant's sincere confusion and diligence.

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 moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting her a rent abatement, which the respondent had already paid.

The moving party filed the motion over two years after the deadline, arguing the Limitations Act applied or the Residential Tenancies Act deadline breached the Charter.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no intention to appeal within the deadline, no good explanation for the delay, and significant prejudice to the respondent who had sold the property years prior.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for breach of an oral agreement and unjust enrichment regarding a condominium assignment.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim on a motion for non-suit after the appellants closed their case.

The Divisional Court found that while the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear non-suit motions, the trial judge erred in law by applying a balance of probabilities test instead of assessing whether a prima facie case was made.

However, the court declined to order a new trial, instead exercising its power under the Courts of Justice Act to substitute its own decision.

The court agreed with the trial judge's factual findings that the oral contract lacked certainty and the written assignment agreement provided a juristic reason for any enrichment, ultimately dismissing the appellants' claim.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for breach of contract regarding the restoration of a 1986 Ford Bronco and granting the respondent's counterclaim for the balance of the contract price.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the vehicle was to be made drivable and improperly admitted an expert report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were grounded in the evidence and noting the appellant himself had introduced the expert report at trial without challenging the expert's qualifications.

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.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The LTB ordered eviction based on the tenants' failure to pay their share of utilities, which the LTB found substantially interfered with the landlords' rights.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they complained to the municipality about heating issues.

The Divisional Court found the LTB erred in law by failing to consider the tenants' retaliation argument under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act and by failing to consider whether to refuse the eviction on conditions under s. 83(1).

The appeal was granted in part and remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for unpaid meat deliveries.

The trial judge preferred the respondent's evidence, finding that the individual appellant caused her corporations to issue cheques without adequate funds and personally guaranteed payment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings.

The court also upheld the finding of personal liability against the corporate director.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $24,500 for the sale of furniture.

The appellant argued the transaction was a consignment and that the respondent did not own the property to sell it.

The trial judge found the respondent acted as an agent for an undisclosed principal (his wife's company) and could enforce the contract.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the trial judge erred in raising the unpleaded issue of agency because the parties were represented by paralegals, the finding was an alternative to finding the respondent was an owner.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for unpaid invoices and the respondent homeowner's set-off claim.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the contract by failing to provide materials and labour in a good and workmanlike manner, and that the appellant failed to prove its claim for the outstanding balance.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the breach.

The court also held that while the trial judge erred in considering damages when only a set-off was permitted, this did not affect the outcome as the appellant failed to prove its claim.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.