Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-625285

DATE: 20210125

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: RISHI GUNESS CHADEESINGH, TRANSFORMATION NETWORKS INC., AND RDEL TECHNOLOGIES, Applicants

AND:

CARLOS DAVID FLORES, Respondent

BEFORE: Schabas J.

COUNSEL: Shahzad Siddiqui, Counsel for the Applicants

Harvey S. Dorsey, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: Written submissions

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The parties disagree over the form of the formal Judgment arising from my decisions in this matter on September 15 and November 6, 2020.

[2] The applicants wish the recitals to the Judgment to refer to all the materials before me on the hearing, and to reference the amended notice of application.

[3] The respondent refers to Form 59B which suggests that Judgments from trials and applications do not need to provide particulars of the evidence. This is in contrast to Judgments following motions, in which the Form provides that “particulars of the material filed on the motion” be included.

[4] The respondent’s objection is stated simply: “The issued and entered Judgment should conform with Form 59B and the Applicants’ lawyer’s request to include superfluous recitals are improper.”

[5] While the respondent may be technically correct, his objection goes no further.

[6] I see no harm and potentially some benefit in providing specificity in the Judgment. This application arose in the context of an ongoing arbitration, in which there have already been several orders and directions. It is possible that what was before me on the application may be relevant in the arbitration or in other future proceedings.

[7] Accordingly, I agree with the draft Judgment presented by the applicants, which also properly includes reference to the “Fresh as Amended Notice of Application” and the interest rate.

[8] Counsel for the applicants shall provide me with a copy of the Judgment for my signature.

Paul B. Schabas J.

Date: January 25, 2021