Sukhjinder Sing Bhangu

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ appeal from a judgment granting partial summary judgment and continuing a Mareva injunction in favour of the respondents.

The appellants, led by Navdeep Singh Boparai, had persuaded the respondents to invest over $1 million in various schemes, which the motion judge found to be fraudulent.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis, including her findings of fraudulent misrepresentation, her application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and her decision to continue the Mareva injunction.

The appeal was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for repayment of investment funds and to amend their Statement of Claim to plead fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants sought to remove a Mareva injunction.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their Statement of Claim, maintained the Mareva injunction, and granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs for $1,617,679.53, finding fraudulent misrepresentation by the principal defendant.

Issues of additional quantum owed and punitive damages were reserved for trial.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), brought a motion for summary judgment against American Haulage Inc. (American) for amounts owing under a credit agreement, and against its directors, Harsimran Singh Gill and Lakhwinder Dhindsa, based on personal guarantees.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which was denied due to lack of diligence in cross-examination and prior agreement on the hearing date.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that American was in default of its credit obligations and that Gill and Dhindsa were liable under the new guarantee, despite their claims of not reading or understanding the documents or lacking independent legal advice.

Judgment was granted in favour of RBC against all defendants.

The defendants, Rosemary Palmieri, De Zen Realty Company Ltd., Sam Jonathan Lee, and Master’s Roofing and Supplies Inc., brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss an action for damages caused by a fire in a commercial storage unit leased by the plaintiff.

The action alleged negligence and breach of contract.

The court found that the commercial lease's insurance clauses, specifically Articles 10.01 and 10.02, operated as an assumption of risk by the tenant (plaintiff) and included a waiver of subrogation against the landlord and its agents.

The court also found that an exclusion clause (Article 6.12) in the lease was valid and applicable.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding the landlord's duty to render premises insurable, waiver by the landlord, and unconscionability were rejected due to lack of pleading, evidentiary support, or legal merit.

The court concluded that the matter was appropriate for summary judgment.

The defendants, a doctor and a medical centre, moved for summary judgment to dismiss a medical negligence action, arguing it was statute-barred and lacked expert evidence.

The plaintiffs sought a further adjournment, claiming COVID-19 travel restrictions prevented them from obtaining necessary evidence from Nigeria.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the plaintiffs' reasons vague and the sought evidence irrelevant to the limitation period or the Canadian standard of care.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period and the absence of a qualified expert report.

The plaintiff, Nadeem Ahmed Mughal, brought a civil fraud action against Bama Inc. and its directors, Abdul Raheem Qureshi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, and Badar Sohail Khan, after losing $210,000 invested through Qureshi.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation, deceit, conversion, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found Qureshi personally liable for civil fraud and Qureshi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, and Bama Inc. jointly and severally liable for conspiracy to cause economic injury.

The claims against Badar Sohail Khan were dismissed.

The court also found a purported settlement agreement between the plaintiff and ET Zone unenforceable due to bad faith and contractual bars.

Judgment was granted for $210,000 plus interest against Qureshi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, and Bama Inc.