Shahzad Siddiqui

The respondent brought a motion for recusal against the case management judge, alleging bias and lack of impartiality.

The judge had appointed herself as case management judge for complex, protracted proceedings involving the parties.

The respondent maintained the allegations despite being offered an opportunity to withdraw them, and was directed to bring a formal recusal motion.

The respondent failed to provide cogent evidence of bias.

Applying the high threshold for recusal motions, particularly within the case management context, the court found no actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The recusal motion was dismissed.

Mohammad Akram, an incapable person with substantial property, had The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company appointed as interim guardian.

Due to persistent family disputes and non-cooperation, the interim guardian moved for its removal, the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), and approval of its compensation and indemnification for legal fees.

The court determined it lacked authority to appoint the PGT as guardian without the PGT's consent and a formal application, especially since other family members expressed willingness to act.

The court denied the immediate removal of the interim guardian but varied the existing Order Giving Directions to establish a structured timetable for the appointment of a permanent guardian and mandatory mediation.

The court granted the interim guardian permission to pre-take compensation and indemnify itself for legal fees, and appointed the PGT as litigation guardian for the purpose of passing accounts.

The plaintiff and defendant, former business partners, each brought motions for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction for a property on Lushes Avenue.

The plaintiff sought specific performance and damages, alleging the defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and acted in bad faith.

The defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action, damages for unjust enrichment, vacant possession, and an order for sale, alleging the plaintiff anticipatorily repudiated the contract by lacking funds to close.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding numerous factual and legal issues in dispute, including which party was responsible for the failed transaction, the plaintiff's ability to close, anticipatory breach, and the property's uniqueness.

The court determined that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, citing deficiencies in the motion record and serious credibility issues requiring viva voce evidence.

The plaintiff and defendant, former business partners, each brought motions for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction for a property on Lushes Avenue.

The plaintiff sought specific performance and damages, alleging the defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and acted in bad faith.

The defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's action, damages for unjust enrichment, vacant possession, and an order for sale, alleging the plaintiff anticipatorily repudiated the contract by lacking funds to close.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding numerous factual and legal issues in dispute, including which party was responsible for the failed transaction, the plaintiff's ability to close, anticipatory breach, and the property's uniqueness.

The court determined that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, citing deficiencies in the motion record and serious credibility issues requiring viva voce evidence.

The moving party sought extensions of time to appeal three orders from the Superior Court: a contempt order dated October 10, 2017, a costs order dated January 26, 2018, and a sentencing order dated September 21, 2018, which struck the moving party's pleadings and allowed the respondent to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The motion judge dismissed the extensions for the first two orders on the basis of abuse of process, given the substantial delays, lack of satisfactory explanation, and the moving party's pattern of non-compliance with court orders and procedural rules.

However, the motion judge granted an extension for the sentencing order due to its severe procedural consequences, and stayed that order pending appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction, alleging he was the victim of mortgage fraud by his agent and could not obtain financing.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement and that the alleged fraud did not excuse his failure to close.

The plaintiffs were awarded the $75,000 deposit and $308,688.31 in damages for the difference in the resale price and carrying costs.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for relief from forfeiture.

The Applicant sought costs following a motion for contempt, which was dismissed because the Respondent's non-compliance with a prior order was partly due to the Applicant's inaccurate documentation.

The Applicant requested costs on a substantial or partial indemnity scale, while the Respondent sought costs against the Applicant for alleged misconduct.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found no conduct by the Applicant warranting costs against it, but also determined that the Applicant was not entitled to costs due to its own contribution to the dispute.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to make no costs award on the application.

The purchaser, Salvatore Benedetto, failed to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for three properties, having paid a $100,000 deposit held by Re/Max.

Benedetto had signed the APS "In Trust For A Company to be Incorporated without any Personal liabilities," relying on s. 21(4) of the Business Corporations Act to argue the deposit should be returned.

The vendor, 2453912 Ontario Inc., moved for summary judgment, seeking forfeiture of the deposit.

The court ruled that s. 21(4) prevents personal liability for contractual obligations but does not prevent the forfeiture of a deposit, which serves as an earnest to secure performance.

The court granted the vendor's motion, ordering the deposit released to the vendor, and dismissed Benedetto's claim for its return.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice refusing to adjourn an application.

The appellant argued it was denied procedural fairness as it was unrepresented, had taken steps to prepare a response, and there had been no prior adjournments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's discretionary decision to refuse the adjournment, finding that the request appeared to be an attempt to delay proceedings.

The court noted the appellant's pattern of resisting performance of contractual obligations through litigation and its relative inaction in the seven weeks between service and the return date.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice and moved to admit fresh evidence demonstrating that the respondent was under administration in the UK after the statement of claim and in liquidation after judgment.

The appellant argued this fresh evidence showed the respondent was not entitled to pursue the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it sufficiently clear from existing exhibits that the claim was a subrogated claim brought by the respondent's credit insurer and therefore not caught by bankruptcy proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, an auditing firm, sought judgment against the respondents for unpaid invoices via an application.

The respondents disputed the fees, alleging a promised discount and challenging the contractual interest rate.

The court considered whether the matter could be resolved by application or required conversion to an action.

Finding material facts in dispute regarding the alleged discount and the need for pleadings to clarify legal positions, the court concluded that the application was not a "clearest of cases" suitable for resolution on a paper record.

The application was therefore converted into an action, and a trial was directed, with a timetable for the exchange of pleadings.

The court reviewed the report of a court-appointed independent solicitor who conducted the election of directors for the Muslim Association of Milton.

Neither party objected to the report or the conduct of the election.

The court adopted the report in its entirety, confirmed the elected directors for a five-year term, and approved the solicitor's account of $17,854.45 in full, ordering the Association to pay it.

The plaintiff subcontractor, S&K Construction, registered a construction lien against the owner, NAMF, and the general contractor, Hussain, for unpaid work on a gym renovation project.

The central dispute involved the installation of a defective epoxy gym floor.

The court found that both the general contractor and the subcontractor breached their respective contracts by failing to deliver a floor that was smooth enough for gym use.

As a result, the subcontractor's lien claim for the floor work was dismissed.

The owner's claim for the full cost of a replacement pulastic floor was denied due to betterment, but the owner was awarded the cost of removing the defective epoxy.

The subcontractor was awarded a reduced lien amount for authorized non-floor work, and the general contractor was awarded payment for an HVAC unit.

Members of a charitable non‑profit corporation sought to set aside a board election on the basis that the process violated the corporation’s by‑laws and basic principles of fairness.

The court found that the interim board improperly expanded the membership list prior to the election and required members to reaffirm their memberships despite no authority for such requirement in the by‑laws.

The election was also conducted for a two‑year term despite the by‑laws specifying five‑year terms.

These irregularities went to the core of the electoral process and undermined the legitimacy of the result.

The court declared the election void and ordered that a new election be conducted under the supervision of an independent solicitor.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an action for unjust enrichment to recover $194,000 USD mistakenly paid to the defendants.

The funds were intended for another claimant under a United Nations compensation program but were erroneously sent to the defendant wife.

The defendants cashed the cheque and spent the funds, later arguing estoppel and change of position.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defendants knew or ought to have known the funds were misdirected.

The court rejected the defendants' defences, finding no juristic reason for the enrichment, and ordered the defendants to repay the outstanding balance of the funds plus interest and costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process due to a prior default judgment.

The court declined to strike the entire action, finding the prior action involved a sublease while the current action involved the purchase and sale of a business.

However, the court struck several claims, including inducing breach of contract against a corporate director without leave to amend, and claims for unjust enrichment and conspiracy with leave to amend.

The moving parties were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing claims alleging that the plaintiffs were defrauded when their share in a real estate syndicate held through a trust was misappropriated and transferred to the moving parties.

The motion argued the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs discovered the claim by 2005 but did not join the moving parties until 2008.

The court held that if the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, the claim would be out of time; however, uncertainty remained whether the Real Property Limitations Act governed claims seeking equitable interests in land.

Because it was unclear which statutory regime applied, a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the applicable limitation period.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.