Sudha Chandra

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to collect the $69,090.92 balance of an unpaid loan used by the defendant to purchase securities.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the bank was responsible for the fraudulent actions of her investment advisor and breached a fiduciary duty.

The court granted summary judgment for the bank and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence that the bank was responsible for the advisor's actions and affirming that a standard debtor-creditor relationship does not create a fiduciary duty.

This motion, brought by the defendant Servisair Inc., sought various relief including dismissal of the action, but primarily focused on costs arising from the plaintiff's outstanding undertakings and failure to attend a mandatory mediation.

The court fixed costs thrown away for the aborted mediation and costs of the motion, both on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the plaintiff to Servisair Inc.

The respondent husband sought costs following his successful motion to list the jointly-owned matrimonial home for sale.

The husband requested full indemnity costs of $7,397.30, arguing he beat his offer to settle and the applicant wife acted in bad faith.

The court found the husband was presumptively entitled to costs and met the criteria under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, because the husband's bill of costs lacked individual time dockets to separate fees incurred after the offer, and the wife's conduct did not amount to bad faith, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The wife was ordered to pay costs fixed at $5,548.00.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a prior court order for the applicant to sell her interest in a jointly owned property and to dispense with her consent for title transfer, due to the applicant's non-compliance with previous orders, including child support arrears.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought an adjournment to obtain a forensic report to challenge the prior order, alleging misrepresentation or fraud.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing the mandatory nature of court orders and the applicant's history of non-compliance.

The respondent's motion was granted, ordering the property transfer and awarding costs to the respondent.