Suvendu Goswami

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated February 4, 2026.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

Following a successful application regarding an international fraud scheme, the applicants sought costs against the respondents.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $185,000 against the corporate respondent, Iberbanco, due to its ongoing willful disregard for court orders, misrepresentations to the court, unfounded allegations against the applicants, and efforts to impede the investigation.

The court declined to order costs against the individual respondents personally, as no relief had been granted against them in the main application.

The applicants sought a declaration that their deceased son's written consent for his cryopreserved sperm complied with the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and its regulations, and an order for its release to create an embryo.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Act prohibits the use of human reproductive material for embryo creation without specific written consent for third-party use, and that posthumous donation is limited to a spouse or common-law partner.

The court also found that distributing the sperm in Canada for use outside Canada would still breach the Act due to distribution prohibitions and lack of required testing.

The appellants moved for an urgent stay pending appeal of an order directing an election for a new board of directors of a religious congregation.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the appeal lacked merit, that there was no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured restoring member democracy, the court dismissed the motion for a stay.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of two consolidated motions to disqualify counsel, Mr. Suvendu Goswami, for alleged conflicts of interest.

The court had initially recommended substantial indemnity costs but invited an apology from the applicants' lawyers and a request for partial indemnity.

Despite one lawyer's "paltry apology" and the other's refusal, the court ultimately awarded partial indemnity costs, acknowledging Mr. Goswami's acceptance of the apology.

The court also clarified that the two groups of applicants were complicit in the conduct justifying a punitive costs award, but the final award was based on normal principles due to the apology's acceptance.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded on a summary judgment motion in a real estate transaction dispute, sought costs.

The court determined the application of Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which dictates costs consequences for unaccepted offers to settle.

The defendants argued that a non-disparagement clause in the plaintiffs' offer to settle rendered it invalid for Rule 49.10 purposes.

The court found the non-disparagement provision to be clear and not unreasonable, distinguishing it from cases where an offer's terms were vague or uncertain.

As the judgment obtained by the plaintiffs was more favourable than their offer, they were awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $33,039.76, considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of fairness and reasonableness.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the agreement was void due to issues with a power of attorney, misrepresentation of square footage, and failure to provide a survey.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability or mitigation of damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for forfeiture of the deposit and damages for the loss in property value and increased commission fees upon resale.

The applicants in two related applications concerning the governance of a religious organization brought motions to disqualify the respondents' lawyer of record.

The applicants alleged that the lawyer was unfit to practice law, was a potential material witness, and had personal and client conflicts of interest.

The court dismissed the motions, finding no merit to any of the grounds for disqualification.

The court held that the lawyer's fitness to practice was not in issue, he was not a material witness, and he had no disqualifying conflicts of interest.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondents, noting that the applicants' lawyers had overreacted and made unfounded allegations.

This application concerned a dispute between minority and majority factions of the board of trustees of a not-for-profit religious organization (Toronto Kalibari) over the amendment of corporate by-laws during a transition to the Canada Not-for-profit Corporation Act.

The applicant alleged irregular and improper behaviour by the respondents in retaining corporate counsel and drafting new by-laws.

The court found that the respondents acted in bad faith in retaining counsel and inviting them to a board meeting without proper notice, declaring these actions unlawful and unenforceable.

The court refused to impose the applicant's proposed by-laws or grant leave for a derivative action, instead ordering a return to the position after an earlier consent order, requiring the corporation to retain new independent counsel.

The plaintiff landlord brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for breach of a commercial lease after the tenant abandoned the premises before the end of the lease term.

Individual defendants argued they were not personally liable under the lease.

The court found that both individuals had signed the lease in their personal capacities in addition to signing on behalf of the corporate tenant and were therefore bound as tenants.

The defendants failed to establish any failure by the landlord to mitigate damages after the abandonment.

Judgment was granted for the landlord for damages and prejudgment interest.

The applicants and respondents are trustees of a religious corporation.

The applicants signed a petition alleging improprieties by the board.

In response, the respondent trustees initiated show cause hearings to terminate the applicants' membership in the corporation.

The applicants sought an order declaring these actions unlawful.

The court granted the application, finding that the respondents acted in bad faith by using the membership termination process for the oblique purpose of removing the applicants from the board of trustees, which could only be done for lack of attendance under the bylaws.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $30,213 on a second mortgage.

They argued the trial judge made inconsistent factual findings regarding a $33,000 mortgage commission and erred in enforcing the mortgage despite the respondent being an unlicensed lender in breach of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the factual findings and holding that a breach of the Act does not render the underlying contract a nullity.

The appellant appealed his conviction following a guilty plea and sought to withdraw the plea, arguing it should not stand.

The court accepted trial counsel's affidavit that the plea was fully informed and voluntary and made in the face of an overwhelming Crown case.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence and challenged the refusal of a conditional sentence for offences involving a large quantity of counterfeit travellers cheques, forged identification, embossing plates, a criminal record, and commission of the offences while on probation.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.