Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-24-5159-0000 Date: 2026-01-12 Superior Court of Justice -- Ontario 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton, Ontario L9T 1Y7

Re: Vanessa Rajabally, Applicant -and- Nasiruddin Rajabally, Respondent

Before: C. Chang J.

Counsel: B. Grant, R. Fellus, for the Applicant B. Grant (agent for N. Kochman, A. Hummel), for the Respondent

Heard: January 12, 2026 (in-person)

Endorsement

[1] This application involves a dispute between a father and his daughter in respect of a condominium property in Milton.

[2] Father and daughter were able to resolve that dispute in accordance with the terms of a draft consent judgment.

[3] That they did so is, of course, commendable. However, what is also commendable is the manner in which the parties and counsel litigated this case.

[4] The notice of application was issued December 30, 2024, the application was served in January 2025, and the application was initially returnable at Triage Court on February 27, 2025 for a timetable order, which order was arrived at on consent. The parties and counsel followed that timetable order, and fully briefed the case, including the completion of cross-examinations, and reattended Triage Court on August 28, 2025 to set a date for a half-day hearing, and a judicial pretrial conference. Negotiations continued, and the parties reached a full and final settlement late in the day on January 9, 2026 (last Friday), and counsel immediately filed an updated confirmation form advising of that settlement, together with the applicable draft consent judgment. The covering email message for that updated confirmation form advised of the settlement, and that counsel for the applicant would be attending court this morning to speak to the matter. That email message also asked that the presiding judge be advised of the settlement "to avoid any unnecessary preparation".

[5] The time between the issuance of the notice of application and the hearing date was just over twelve months. The time between service of the application record and the hearing date was less than twelve months. The time between the first Triage Court scheduling attendance and the hearing date was just over ten months. The parties and counsel dealt with all applicable procedural matters on consent. No motions on outstanding undertakings, refusals, or questions taken under advisement had to be brought. Both parties and all counsel were ready to proceed with today's hearing; precluded in doing so only by the settlement achieved. All materials were uploaded in accordance with this court's procedural requirements, and were bookmarked or hyperlinked (often both). Counsel acted reasonably, courteously, and in accordance with best practices. They ensured that the matter was litigated expeditiously, in the best interests of their respective clients, and with great respect for valuable and scarce judicial resources.

[6] The dispute between father and daughter that brought them to this court is unfortunate. That father and daughter were able to settle this application is fortunate, and is to be commended. The manner in which father, daughter, and their respective lawyers litigated this application is fortunate, is to be commended, and is notable.

[7] The pinnacle of professionalism was on full display in this application.

[8] Other counsel should take notes.

Disposition

[9] On consent, judgment to go in accordance with the attached draft amended and signed by me.

C. Chang J. Date: January 12, 2026