Shahzad Siddiqui

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision upholding a trust agreement that declared the appellant company's assets belonged to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's credibility findings regarding the agreement's execution.

However, the Court held that the motion judge erred by granting a certificate of pending litigation on his own initiative, as it was neither pleaded nor requested.

The appeal was allowed in part solely to delete the certificate of pending litigation, and dismissed in all other respects.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

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.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a personal guarantee for a small business loan and setting aside the transfer of a matrimonial home as a fraudulent conveyance.

The appellants argued the Bank's refusal to provide information about the primary debtor's account rendered the guarantee unconscionable or breached a duty of honest performance.

The Court of Appeal found the Bank breached a contractual disclosure obligation but held this did not discharge the guarantee because the guarantor failed to prove any resulting prejudice or damages.

The court also upheld the finding that the property transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellants appealed an order enforcing compliance with condominium rules under s. 134(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The appellant tenant argued she was subjected to oppressive conduct by the condominium corporations.

The motion judge granted the compliance order, noting that no cross-application for an oppression remedy had been brought and that alleged oppressive conduct did not excuse breaching the rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to grant the compliance order.

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 plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee and to set aside a transfer of a debtor's half-interest in the matrimonial home to his spouse.

The responding defendants argued the demand under the guarantee was unconscionable because the bank denied access to corporate banking information after the guarantor ceased to be a signing officer.

The court held there was no evidence of inequality of bargaining power, predation, or an improvident bargain, and found no genuine issue for trial on unconscionability.

Applying the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, the court found multiple badges of fraud, including a transfer between spouses for nominal consideration shortly after notice of impending demand, and set aside the transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

Summary judgment was granted with partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a Master's order granting summary judgment to the respondent for unpaid invoices.

The appellant argued the Master improperly weighed evidence and utilized powers reserved for a judge under Rule 20.04(2.1).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master did not weigh evidence because the appellant failed to provide any evidence in support of its defences and had admitted a substantial portion of the debt.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% beneficial interest in residential property registered in his former spouse's name, alleging his funds were used for half of the down payment.

The court found the parties generally lacked credibility and held the plaintiff failed to trace or prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his funds were used for the purchase.

A co-defendant's cross-claim based on two unchallenged trust declarations succeeded, and the court declared that he held a 50% interest and ordered transfer of that interest to him.

The court declined to resolve the broader accounting and occupancy issues arising under the trust because the documents were vague and the evidentiary record was insufficient.

The appellant, a chiropodist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he breached professional standards by attempting to induce teachers to purchase orthotics during presentations.

He challenged the panel's findings, its refusal to grant an adjournment to retain a new expert, and the penalty imposed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the panel's decision reasonable and the refusal of an adjournment within its discretion.

The court allowed the appeal in part regarding the penalty, imposing a $5,000 cap on the costs of supervision, but otherwise upheld the $38,000 costs order and awarded $15,000 in appeal costs to the respondent.

The parties filed cross-applications alleging breaches of a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant alleged that officials of the respondent Foundation made disparaging remarks about him and breached confidentiality.

The respondent Foundation alleged that the applicant breached confidentiality and made disparaging remarks.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal dismissed both applications.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the respondents made the alleged disparaging remarks.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the applicant breached the confidentiality provision, and his remarks did not constitute disparagement under the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing his defamation action for delay at a status hearing.

The appellant argued the delay was justified because he was waiting for criminal charges of sexual assault to be resolved, but the Master found the criminal charges related to a different incident than the one pleaded in the defamation action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly applied the law, properly rejected the appellant's excuse for delay, and reasonably found actual prejudice to the respondents.

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.