CITATION: Hussain v. Munir, 2026 ONSC 2676
COURT FILE NOS.:: CV-23-93814 and FC-22-277
DATE: 2026/05/06
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Ghulam Hussain, Plaintiff
-and-
Nazar Hussain and Sadia Munir, Defendants
-and-
Sadia Munir, Applicant
-and-
Nazar Hussain, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice M. Flaherty
COUNSEL: Sherif Rizk for Ghulam Hussain
Farad Mehr and Paige Smith for Nazar Hussain
Ayaz Mehdi for Sadia Munir
HEARD: April 29, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This case is about an alleged intra-family loan in the amount of $105,798.75 (“loan”), between Nazar Hussain and his brother Ghulam Hussain. The brothers say the loan was used to make a downpayment on Nazar Hussain and Sadia Munir’s matrimonial home. The validity of the loan is at issue in two matters: a civil proceeding and a family law proceeding.
[2] The motions before me raise the following issues:
(a) should summary judgement be granted in the civil matter?
(b) should Ghulam and Al-Shabbir (a corporation Ghulam owns along with his daughter) be added as a party to the family law proceeding?
(c) what, if any, further disclosure must be provided?
[3] For the reasons that follow, summary judgement is denied. The request to add Ghulam and Al-Shabbir as parties to the family law matter is also denied.
[4] The civil and family matters are consolidated for the sole purpose of holding a focussed trial under the Family Law Rules on issues related to the loan. The civil matter is stayed pending the completion of the focussed trial. The next step is for the parties to schedule a case management hearing to discuss disclosure and the parameters of the focussed trial.
OVERVIEW
[5] Sadia Munir and Nazar Hussain are the parties to the family law matter. Ms. Munir seeks equalization of net family property, among other things. This raises the issue of whether Nazar can properly claim the outstanding loan to Ghulam and whether this money was ultimately used to purchase the matrimonial home. In essence, Ms. Munir alleges that loan is not valid and that the brothers are attempting to shield assets from equalization.
[6] Ghulam is the plaintiff in the civil proceeding. He seeks to enforce the loan against Nazar and Ms. Munir. Nazar has not defended the action and he is in default. Ms. Munir has filed a statement of defence.
[7] In his claim, Ghulam alleges that he and Nazar entered into a loan agreement, for a principal amount of $105,789.75. The funds were paid in four installments: $14,145.00 on January 5, 2008; $7,072.50 on February 5, 2008; $7,072.50 on March 5, 2008; and $77,499.75 on August 6, 2008.
[8] Ghulam says Nazar signed a promissory note in August 2008, after the funds had been advanced. The promissory note provides for either a 5% per annum rate of interest or one-third of the sale price of the property, whichever is greater. The loan was to be repaid “whenever the house is sold.”
[9] There is some dispute about whether Ms. Munir was advised of the loan in 2008. At a minimum, the existence of the loan was disclosed to her in 2022, when the parties exchanged financial statements in the family proceeding. The matrimonial home has now been sold and some of the proceeds have been held back pending the resolution of the matter.
[10] The parties have placed extensive evidence before the court, including affidavits from each of the parties and transcripts of their cross-examinations. Ms. Munir also seeks to rely on a report prepared by Sarba Sohail, a forensic document examiner. Ms. Sohail was cross-examined and that transcript is in evidence. As I discuss below, there is a dispute about what, if any, weight should be given to Ms. Sohail’s report.
[11] Ms. Munir seeks additional disclosure and her requests have been opposed by Nazar and Ghulam. Given the sequence of the procedural steps in this case, disclosure issues came before me at the same time as the motion for summary judgement and the cross-motion to add parties to the family law matter. Ms. Munir opposes the summary judgement motion, in part, because she says the disclosure provided by Nazar and Ghulam is deficient. She submits that these deficiencies raise a genuine issue for trial.
ANALYSIS
Summary Judgement: Legal Principles
[12] The court shall grant summary judgment if it is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial: Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 20.04(2). There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the motion judge is able to reach a fair and just determination of the action on the motion. This is the case when summary judgment allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact; allows the judge to apply the law to the facts; and is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result than a trial: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 49.
[13] The motion judge must first determine whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence filed on the motion, without relying on the enhanced fact-finding powers under r. 20.04(2.1). If, however, the motion judge concludes that a genuine issue for trial exists, the motion judge must then consider whether the need for a trial may be avoided by resorting to the enhanced fact-finding powers set out in r. 20.04(2.1) and (2.2). The motion judge may use those powers, in his or her discretion, unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. Using the enhanced powers will not be against the interests of justice if it will lead to a fair and just result and will serve the goals of timeliness, affordability, and proportionality in light of the litigation as a whole: Hryniak, at para. 66.
[14] A party moving for summary judgment has the evidentiary burden of showing there is no genuine issue for trial. Once this burden is discharged, the responding party must prove that its defence has a real chance of success. Each party must put its best foot forward to establish whether or not there is an issue for trial.
Is there a Genuine Issue for Trial in the Civil Matter?
[15] Ghulam submits that there is no genuine issue for trial: he relies on the written promissory note executed in August 2008 and four cheques that show payments totalling $105,789.75. He submits that the authenticity of the note is not genuinely in dispute: Nazar has admitted that he signed the promissory note, that the funds were received, and that he remains indebted to his brother. Ghulam states that Nazar’s admission is direct evidence from a party against interest. As such, it is not only presumptively reliable, but determinative of liability. Ghulam states that summary judgement should be granted, particularly in the absence of competing evidence from Ms. Munir. In the alternative, Ghulam submits that summary judgement should be granted based on an equitable claim for unjust enrichment.
[16] According to Ghulam, his motion for summary judgement is also supported by the following:
the loan was disclosed to Ms. Munir in at least August of 2022. Because this disclosure pre-dates the civil claim, Ghulam says it is clear that the loan was a longstanding obligation, not a recent fabrication to shelter assets from equalization.
until she filed her defence in October 2024, Ms. Munir did not directly challenge the legitimacy of the loan. Ghulam submits Ms. Munir’s delay in raising the issue shows her position is tactical and a belated attempt to manufacture a defence to the civil claim.
[17] In considering whether the plaintiff met the onus of showing that there is no genuine issue for trial, there are a number of difficulties with the evidence he relies upon.
[18] First, there is contradictory information about the source of the money that was loaned. Ghulam claims the money should be repaid to him, personally. However, in his cross-examination, Ghulam confirmed that the money loaned was paid from Al-Shabbir, a corporation he owns along with his daughter. In Nazar’s financial statement prepared on January 8, 2025 in the family proceeding, he affirmed that the loan was for $200,000 and that it was owed to Al-Shabbir. On the evidence before me, it is not clear whether Ghulam Hussein or Al-Shabbir was the alleged lender.
[19] Second, I have no evidence to show how Al-Shabbir treated the money that was allegedly paid out as a loan. Despite Ms. Munir’s request, there has been no disclosure about how Al-Shabbir accounted for the $105,798.75, either in its internal accounting or in its filings with the Canada Revenue Agency.
[20] This is significant because there is evidence that the brothers’ finances are co-mingled and that money moves between them without clear separation. Ghulam testified that, other than the August 2008 promissory note, there is no loan agreement between the brothers. Yet Nazar is receiving other funds from Al-Shabbir, which is paying for his legal expenses. Nazar also testified that he receives his salary in cash from his niece and that she takes care of paying child support on his behalf. In his cross-examination, Nazar could not say what account or corporation these payments came from and his evidence about whether the child support money was a loan or a gift was unclear. He initially testified that it was a loan, but later said that the money was a gift from his niece, who was “helping him out.”
[21] Third, Ghulam provided bank statements for Al-Shabbir, showing cheque withdrawals corresponding to the amount and approximate date of each of the four cheques. However, each of the four cheques has been altered. The name of the account holder has been whited out and the words “Al Shabbir Trading Co Ltd.” has been hand-written on each of the cheques. Ghulam testified that the cheques mistakenly used the name Rock Junction Inc, but he has refused to produce the original copies. Both brothers are shareholders in Rock Junction Inc.
[22] In my view, the plaintiff has not met the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue for trial, including on the issue of unjust enrichment. Even assuming (without finding) that the promissory note is legitimate, the evidence about the source of the loan is contradictory and the circumstances surrounding the loan raise genuine issues of credibility that go beyond speculation.
[23] I have considered whether the need for a trial can be avoided by resorting to the enhanced fact-finding powers set out in r. 20.04(2.1) and (2.2). I find it cannot. Particularly in the absence of information about Al-Shabbir’s accounting for the funds, the genuine issues of credibility cannot be resolved on the record before me. The timing Ms. Munir’s objections relative to when she learned of the loan is an issue the parties may seek to raise at trial. However, this does not persuade me that summary judgement should be granted in the circumstances. Finally, given the extent to which the brothers’ finances appear to be intertwined, I do not agree that Mr. Nazar’s admission that he signed the promissory note is determinative or presumptively reliable.
[24] As noted, Ms. Munir also seeks to rely on the report of a forensic examiner, who opines that the signature on the promissory note is not Nazar’s. There is a dispute between the parties about what, if any, weight should be placed on this report. The dispute centers on the examiner’s methodology and, more specifically, whether she ought to have been advised that Nazar had admitted to signing the promissory note (as the plaintiff submits) or whether she properly based her analysis only on the documents (as Ms. Munir submits.) I do not need to address this issue in the context of the summary judgement motion. Even if I assume (without finding) that Nazar signed the promissory note, the circumstances of the loan raise issues of credibility that cannot be determined on the evidence before me.
[25] For these reasons, summary judgement is denied.
Should Ghulam and Al-Shabbir be Added as Parties to the Family Law Proceeding?
[26] The parties agree that the validity of the loan is an issue that must be determined in both the family and the civil proceeding. They also agree the matters should proceed in a way that avoids the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.
[27] Ms. Munir has brought a cross-motion seeking to add Al-Shabbir and Ghulam as parties to the family law matter. This is opposed by Nazar, who submits that it would be more appropriate for the two matters to be heard together, by the same judge. Ghulam also opposes the cross-motion. He submits that if summary judgement is not granted, the court should hold a focussed trial on issues related to the loan and should provide direction regarding which rules apply.
[28] I am not prepared to exercise my discretion under the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99 to add Ghulam Hussain and/or Al-Shabbir as parties to the family law action. Rules 2(2) and 2(3) state that the primary objective of the Rules is to enable the court to deal justly with cases, which includes ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties, that it saves time and expense, that appropriate court resources are allocated, and that the case is dealt with in a manner proportionate to its importance and complexity.
[29] The family law matter raises a number of issues in addition to the loan, including parenting time, child support, spousal support, and other financial matters. Adding Ghulam and Al-Shabbir as parties would not be a convenient or efficient way of proceeding and could unduly complicate the resolution of the family law issues. I am also not persuaded that it is necessary to add them as parties. The common issue of the loan may be fairly and more expeditiously addressed in other ways. To the extent that Ms. Munir’s objective is to obtain disclosure, that is not a standalone basis to add a party and there are other mechanisms available to her.
[30] Similarly, having the matters heard separately by the same judge would not necessarily be efficient. Even with the same judge, there may be a duplication of testimony and submissions, which would require significant judicial resources and could increase the time and expense required of the parties.
[31] In my view, the most appropriate way to proceed is to schedule a focussed trial under the Family Law Rules to deal with all issues in dispute related to the loan. The civil action is stayed pending the outcome of the focussed trial. The next step is for the parties to schedule a case management hearing to deal with the parameters of the focussed trial.
[32] Given the time allocated for the motions, the parties’ submissions did not fully address the issue of disclosure. That issue is best discussed at the case management hearing.
[33] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may make brief written submissions of no more than three pages, double spaced, 12-point font, exclusive of cost outlines. All parties will be strictly held to this page limit. Ms. Munir’s costs submissions are to be served and filed within 14 days. Nazar Hussain and Ghulam Hussain’s submissions are to be served and filed within 30 days. There will be no reply without leave.
Justice M. Flaherty
Date: May 6, 2026
CITATION: Hussain v. Munir, 2026 ONSC 2676
COURT FILE NO.:: CV-23-93814 and FC-22-277
DATE: 2026/05/06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Ghulam Hussain, Plaintiff
-and-
Nazar Hussain and Sadia Munir, Defendants
-and-
Sadia Munir, Applicant
-and-
Nazar Hussain, Respondent
COUNSEL:
Sherif Rizk for Ghulam Hussain
Farad Mehr and Paige Smith for Nazar Hussain
Ayaz Mehdi for Sadia Munir
REASONS FOR DECISION
Flaherty J.
Released: May 6, 2026