COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-1213-0000
DATE: 2023 11 17
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WASIM INVESTMENTS LTD, plaintiff
MENON, Lata, for the plaintiff Email: info@menonlawoffice.com
Plaintiff
- and -
RANGANATHAN, Vijaya Prabakaran Sree, defendant 1 RAGURAMAN, Keerthana, defendant 2 SAARAL South Indian Restaurant Corp. O/A Asaaral South Indian Restaurant, defendant 3
Defendants
WADHWA, Preet Mohinder Singh, for the defendants Email: preetwadhwalaw@gmail.com
HEARD: November 16, 2023, by video conference
AMENDED ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Defendants move to have the matter dismissed pursuant to Rule 21.01(3)(b) and (c) because there is no valid and enforceable contract between the parties, and because there is a duplicative matter pending before the courts, namely, CV-22-544. The Plaintiff resists the motion.
[2] The parties’ dispute centres around a private mortgage agreement. Vijay Ranganathan and Keerthana Raguraman admit that they signed a private mortgage agreement with Mr. Azhar Wasim. In a parallel proceeding, CV-22-244, Vijay and Keerthana ask the court to set aside the private mortgage agreement based on allegations of fraud and other grounds. That matter is proceeding through the courts.
[3] When they signed the private mortgage, Mr. Wasim owned Wasim Investment Ltd. while Vijay and Keerthana owned Saaral Restaurant. Saaral Restaurants is not a plaintiff in the CV-22-544 action, and Wasim Investment Ltd is not a defendant. Here, Wasim Investments Inc. says that parties signed the private mortgage agreement on behalf of their two corporations and not in their personal capacities. As proof of this, he proffers bank records which he says show that Wasim Investments Ltd. transferred the mortgage funds to the bank account of Saaral Restaurants. He admits that the contract on its face does not name either corporation, that the signature lines do not state that the parties are signing on behalf of their corporation, and that Vijay and Keerthana used the private mortgage to purchase their private residence.
[4] At its essence, Mr. Wasim seeks to establish that some version of the contract is valid so that he can enforce it. His corporation wishes to establish that it was the party to the contract so that Mr. Wasim can avoid personal liability. The factual issues in this action go to the heart of the proper interpretation of the private mortgage contract. This action is duplicative of the CV-22-544 action because there is a clear risk of abuse of process if the same contract is interpreted inconsistently on key points such as the parties to the contract.
[5] If Wasim Investment Ltd wishes to raise the issues he pleads in this action, it has a remedy by bringing a motion to be added as a third party in the CV-22-544 action and making a third-party cross claim against the personal defendants and Saraal Restaurant.
[6] The Plaintiff’s action is dismissed. The Defendant is entitled to costs in the amount of $9,000 all inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis. This action was entirely duplicative and wasteful of precious court resources. Still, I am not awarding substantial indemnity costs because Defendant’s counsel was completely unable (and unwilling) to use Caselines to direct the court, instead relying entirely on Plaintiff’s counsel for assistance. This is not in keeping with the clear expectations outlines in all recent practice directions. Counsel is encouraged to be more prepared to assist the court in the future.
MANDHANE J.
2023 ONSC 6507
COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-1213-0000
DATE: 2023 11 17
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WASIM INVESTMENTS LTD
Plaintiff
- and -
RANGANATHAN, Vijaya Prabakaran Sree, defendant 1
RAGURAMAN, Keerthana, defendant 2
SAARAL South Indian Restaurant Corp. O/A Asaaral South Indian Restaurant, defendant 3
Defendants
AMENDED ENDORSEMENT
Mandhane J.
Released: November 17, 2023