Siddharth S. Joshi

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Manpreet Dhaliwal’s appeal from the trial decision and costs order in her family and civil actions against Hardeep Singh Nijher and his family.

The court found no legal or factual errors in the trial judge’s findings regarding property equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress.

The trial judge’s credibility findings against the appellant were upheld, and the court found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The applicant, Hoshang Bakhshi, sought relief under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16, alleging oppressive conduct by the respondents.

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with a prior order to produce records and respond in a timely manner.

The court granted the application, awarding Bakhshi the return of his investment, a share of sale proceeds, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct to be covert and in bad faith.

This costs endorsement follows a motion for summary judgment in a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff was awarded judgment and sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle and alleged conduct by the defendant’s counsel.

The court found the offer to settle was not more favourable than the judgment and that the defendant’s conduct did not justify elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This motion for summary judgment arose from a failed real estate transaction where the defendant buyer breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) due to financing issues.

The plaintiff seller re-sold the property for a lower price and sought damages for the price difference and carrying costs.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by delaying re-listing.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant liable for breach and that the plaintiff acted reasonably in mitigation.

Damages were awarded for the loss on resale and some expenses, with deductions for the forfeited deposit and rental income.

Parkland Corporation, a fuel supplier, sought a declaration that its lease and sublease agreements with Caledon Fuels Inc., a gas station operator, were in full force and effect, and a permanent injunction to prevent Caledon from breaching exclusive supply covenants.

Caledon argued an alleged oral agreement varied the renewal option and that Parkland breached its duty of good faith.

The court found the alleged oral agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and the parol evidence rule, and deemed it unbelievable.

The court also found no breach of good faith by Parkland.

Consequently, the court granted the declaration and permanent injunction in favour of Parkland and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The Applicant sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent brought claims for equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress against the Applicant and his family.

The court dismissed all of the Respondent's claims except for an equalization payment of $6,534.50, finding her evidence largely incredible and unreliable.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request for an unequal division of family property.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Justice's order that set aside the noting in default of the defendants.

The court found that the Associate Justice erred in principle and made overriding errors of fact by misapprehending service issues and the defendants' persistent non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeal was granted, confirming that the defendants were properly noted in default, and allowing the plaintiff to proceed with a motion for default judgment.

The defendant moved for the release of proceeds held in trust from the sale of her home.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on an ex parte motion, claiming an interest in the property based on an alleged agreement of purchase and sale.

The property was subsequently sold by a mortgage lender after the defendant defaulted, and the net proceeds were held in trust.

The court found that the CPL should have been discharged due to the plaintiffs' failure to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion and because equitable factors favoured discharge.

The court also declined to order the funds held as security under Rule 45.02, noting the plaintiffs' claim was ultimately for damages.

The motion was granted and the funds were ordered released to the defendant.