Superior Court of Justice

The decision resolves competing applications regarding the ownership and directorship of 2761499 Ontario Inc. (“276”) and related financial claims among parties involved in several investment companies.

The court finds that Gurvinder Singh Saini and Najinder Garcha are the only directors and shareholders of 276, rejecting Minkle Mittal’s claim to ownership or directorship.

The court also dismisses Mittal and Golden Freight Forwarding and Marketing Inc.’s counter-application for relief regarding other companies, finding no evidentiary basis for their claims.

Costs are awarded to Saini and Garcha.

The plaintiff, Allan Mann, sued his former criminal defence lawyers, Edward H. Royle and James Miglin, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related wrongs arising from their representation in his criminal proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as an abuse of process and for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that such a claim constitutes an improper collateral attack on the criminal conviction and sentence, which were never appealed.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), child and spousal support, parenting time, and property division.

The court found a pattern of psychological, sexual, physical, and financial abuse by the father, and adopted a restorative approach to parenting orders, emphasizing the children's best interests, stability, and the need for therapeutic interventions.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority (except for extracurriculars), and the father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing support.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the impact of IPV on family dynamics and the application of restorative justice principles in family law.

The decision finds Samir Abdelgadir guilty of kidnapping S.J., a 14-year-old abducted outside his home in Toronto.

The court details the planning and execution of the kidnapping, including the use of multiple vehicles, the roles of various associates, and the subsequent burning of the getaway vehicle.

The court analyzes the credibility of key witnesses, the circumstantial evidence, and the legal principles of party liability and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge concludes that Abdelgadir, while not the person who physically abducted S.J., knowingly participated as the driver of a support vehicle and was part of the coordinated plan.

The court considered an application by the father for shared decision-making and parenting time, and a response by the mother for primary residence, final decision-making, child and spousal support, and related relief.

After reviewing the parties’ history, the children’s needs, and the evidence of family violence and parental conduct, the court ordered primary residence and final decision-making with the mother, a specified parenting schedule for the father, child and spousal support, and prejudgment interest.

The court found the mother’s evidence more credible, noted the father’s undermining behaviour, and emphasized the best interests of the children, particularly in light of the son’s high needs and the impact of family violence.

The court denied the defendants' motion to adjourn a scheduled trial pending the outcome of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) application.

The court found that the defendants delayed bringing the application and that the interests of justice, including the plaintiff's need for timely resolution and access to treatment, outweighed the defendants' arguments.

The court ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Manoravy Thillainathan, to amend his Notice of Application and file supplementary affidavits in a proceeding against the Hindu Temple Society of Canada (HTSC).

The HTSC opposed and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as moot.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the admissibility of new evidence.

The court finds that the challenge to the 2021 election is now moot, declines to allow amendments to add a monitor or challenge the 2023 election, and refuses to admit the new affidavits at this stage.

The application is discontinued as against the 26 named former directors and officers, and only the HTSC remains as respondent.

This decision addresses the Crown's application to admit similar fact evidence across multiple counts in a multi-count indictment involving allegations of physical and sexual abuse by parents against their children.

The court reviews the legal principles governing similar fact evidence, including the need for the Crown to clearly articulate the evidence, issues, and purposes for which such evidence is proffered, and the requirement that its probative value outweigh any prejudicial effect.

The court also considers the timing and form of the Crown's application, the potential for collusion or inadvertent tainting among witnesses, and the appropriate instructions to the trier of fact.

Ultimately, the court finds that the probative value of the similar fact evidence is high and the prejudice is low, granting the Crown's application to admit the evidence across counts.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs and prejudgment interest following a construction lien action.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, Zagros Homes Development Inc., against Cando 1 Construction Inc., and substantial indemnity costs to the Owners (Ernest Mbenkum and Alliance Lipenja) against both Zagros and Cando.

The court also exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest at 2.5% per annum, higher than the statutory rate, due to market conditions.

The decision clarifies the approach to costs where parties have not succeeded against all defendants and addresses the application of prejudgment interest rates in the post-pandemic context.

The plaintiff, Giuseppina Mari, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Mujeeb Sanjer and Genan Zamt, following a failed real estate transaction.

The court considered whether the original or amended agreement of purchase and sale should be used to assess damages, whether the plaintiff mitigated her damages, and what additional damages were recoverable.

The court held that the original agreement applied, awarded damages based on the difference between the original sale price and the ultimate resale price, and allowed certain additional costs.

The court also found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate her losses.

The court considered a motion by the respondent, Ms. Stephenson, to amend her answer to assert trust claims regarding the matrimonial home, more than four years after the application was commenced.

The court reviewed the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the applicable legal principles regarding amendments to pleadings, including the presumption of prejudice arising from inordinate and unexplained delay.

The court found that Ms. Stephenson failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her delay, that the amendment would cause prejudice to the applicant not compensable by costs or adjournment, and that the interests of justice required the matter to proceed to trial on the existing pleadings.

The motion to amend was dismissed.

The applicant, Heather Ann Hugginson, sought a declaration that a $400,000 inter vivos gift allegedly given by the deceased, Glenn Poole, to the respondent, Sandra Hugginson, was invalid and that the funds should be returned to the estate.

The court found that Sandra failed to prove Glenn’s specific intent to make the gift or that he delivered the gift before his death.

The court also rejected the argument that the gift was perfected when Sandra became estate trustee, finding the rule in Strong v. Bird did not apply.

The application was granted and Sandra was ordered to return the $400,000 to the estate.

The court dismissed the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that Facebook posts made by the defendant accusing the plaintiffs of corruption and bribery were not protected as fair comment.

The posts, which followed a controversial development approval in Niagara-on-the-Lake, were found to be based on falsehoods and reckless disregard for the truth, with the defendant admitting he had “no proof” for his accusations.

The court held that the harm to the plaintiffs’ reputation and business interests outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant’s expression, and that the posts were motivated by an ulterior motive to thwart the plaintiffs’ development project.

This decision addresses parenting time, joint decision-making, family violence, and property issues between Chevdet Alievski and Xhensila Alievski.

The court found that both parties are capable parents but that the mother was subjected to controlling and emotionally abusive behaviour during the marriage.

The court ordered joint decision-making, with the mother having the final say in the event of an impasse (except where a professional is involved), and implemented a 2-2-5-5 shared parenting schedule.

The court also addressed property division, including the treatment of a joint account and a $40,000 exclusion, and declined to award prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff, Arc Compute, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants—two former senior employees and their new company—from retaining or disclosing confidential information, competing with the plaintiff, and interfering with its client and employee relationships.

The court found that the defendants, as fiduciaries, breached both contractual and common law duties by retaining confidential information and soliciting clients and employees for their competing business.

The court granted a modified injunction, requiring the return of all confidential information, the shutdown of the competing company, and a six-month worldwide non-competition order.

The court considered costs following a mixed-success application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Although the applicants were awarded monetary relief, they failed on significant claims, including a request for 45% ownership and profits of the respondent corporation.

The court found success was divided and ordered each party to bear their own costs, referencing relevant offers to settle and prior case law on divided success.

This endorsement grants initial relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to Synaptive Medical Inc., a Toronto-based medical device company facing a liquidity crisis and insolvency.

The court finds Synaptive to be a “debtor company” under the CCAA, appoints Richter Inc. as Monitor, approves a stay of proceedings, authorizes DIP financing with Export Development Canada, and grants administration, DIP lender, and directors’ charges.

The decision reviews the statutory and case law criteria for CCAA relief, including the expanded concept of insolvency and the requirements for interim financing and related charges.

This endorsement grants a brief adjournment in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, following ongoing discussions between the applicants and stakeholders.

The court extends the stay of proceedings, increases the Directors’ Charge, amends the relative priorities of charges, and approves the engagement of Reflect Advisors, LLC as financial advisor.

The court finds the requested relief appropriate, unopposed, and supported by the Monitor, and orders the requested amendments to the Initial Order.