Surya Sasan

The applicant brought an application claiming that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) seized funds from her father's accounts that rightfully belonged to her from an inheritance in Nigeria.

The father supported the application, contradicting his own previous sworn evidence that the funds were his own inheritance.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the father held the funds in trust for the applicant or that any identifiable funds belonging to the applicant were seized by the CRA.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 to the CRA, payable jointly and severally by the applicant and her father due to their complicity in bringing the misconceived application.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants Isaify Inc. and Ali Imran Zaffar, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for a default judgment previously obtained against other defendants in the amount of $361,062.10.

The plaintiff alleged that Zaffar and Isaify participated in a fraudulent scheme by misrepresenting the financial health of a business partner and allowing their bank accounts to be used to divert funds from creditors.

The court found that the defendants' conduct amounted to fraud, as they knowingly misled the plaintiff and induced it into entering transactions that resulted in financial loss.

The court held that the defendants were bound by the default judgment and ordered them jointly and severally liable for the damages.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed application where the Applicants sought a declaration that the Respondents held their share of a property in trust.

The Respondents, as the successful party, sought costs of $27,000, while the Applicants proposed $10,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found the Respondents were entitled to costs.

While the Respondents' offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49, the Applicants' conduct, including inconsistent pleadings and a narrow view of facts, justified a higher award of costs.

Considering the complexity and importance of the issues, and finding the Respondents' counsel's partial indemnity rate reasonable, the court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the Applicants.

The Applicants sought a declaration that the Respondents held their 50% interest in a property in trust for the Applicants, alleging no significant financial contribution from the Respondents.

The Respondents countered that they contributed most of the down payment and that rental income covered the bulk of carrying costs, while the Applicants lived rent-free.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Respondents made significant contributions to the down payment and that the Applicants' carrying costs were largely offset by rental income and their rent-free occupancy.

The respondent claimed it was owed $245,000 by the appellants.

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement and a Consent to Judgment in July 2008 with legal advice, but subsequently signed another document in September 2008 without legal advice.

The appellants argued the later document superseded the earlier ones, while the respondent disagreed.

The Court of Appeal held that the serious factual issues between the parties could not be resolved on a paper record and required a trial.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment below was set aside.