Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00701343-0000 DATE: 20240115 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: 1000425140 Ontario Inc., Plaintiff -and- 1000176653 Ontario Inc, 1223408 Ontario Limited, Ray Gupta, Sandeep Gupta, and Sunray Group Of Hotels Inc., Defendants

BEFORE: Robert Centa J.

COUNSEL: John J. Adair and Ritika Rai, for the plaintiff Sumeet (Sonu) Dhanju-Dhillon, for the defendants

HEARD: January 12, 2024

Endorsement

[1] On November 27, 2023, I released my reasons for decision granting summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff against 1000176653 Ontario Inc. 1000425140 Ontario Inc. v. 1000176653 Ontario Inc., 2023 ONSC 6688. I found that 653 Ontario made a fraudulent misrepresentation and failed to disclose a latent defect in the property it sold to the plaintiff. I granted recission of the agreement of purchase and sale and equitable damages to put the plaintiff in the position it was in before 653 Ontario induced it to enter into the transaction.

[2] The parties were not able to agree on the form of the order and they requested a case conference before me to settle the order. I reviewed their case conference briefs and heard oral submissions from counsel. These are my reasons regarding the appropriate content of the order.

[3] Where the parties cannot agree on the form of a draft order, rule 59.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 provides a process to have the judge who made the order settle its terms. The judge, therefore, has a role in making sure that the formal order expresses the operative language contained in the endorsement.

[4] An order describes the result already reached by the court and that is explained in the reasons for decision. The process of settling an order is not the time to request new or additional relief, re-argue points already decided by the court, or to vary relief granted by the reasons. DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2014 ONSC 5130, at para. 3; Put differently, the parties may make submissions to me to explain why the order as drafted does or does not reflect the operative terms of the endorsement that I have already made, but no additional relief is available. Drennan v. Drennan, 2024 ONSC 141, at para. 34. The order must express the operative language contained in my reasons for decisions reported at 2023 ONSC 6688, and do no less and no more.

[5] Bearing these principles in mind, certain paragraphs in the plaintiff’s proposed draft order should not be included in the order. Specifically, paragraphs 6 (order for remaining claims to proceed to trial expeditiously), 7 (order that certain facts not be in dispute in the conspiracy claim), 8 (timetable for remaining steps in the action), and 9 (payment of money into court) shall not form part of the order.

[6] Regardless of the merit of such provisions, and regardless of whether or not the plaintiff can obtain some or all this relief at a subsequent case conference or on motion, I did not grant any of that relief in my reasons for decision. It would not be appropriate to include that relief in the order because I did not grant that relief in my reasons for decision.

[7] As of the attendance before me, the parties were still attempting to confirm some of the figures to be included in the order. The parties may deliver a consent order in accordance with this endorsement to my judicial assistant for my review and signature. If the parties wish a further case conference to discuss any remaining issues, they may also contact my judicial assistant.

Robert Centa J. Date: January 15, 2024