Syed Abid Hussain

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The Receiver, B. Riley Farber Inc., brought a motion for directions in an appeal proceeding concerning an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) for the sale of real property.

The appellants, 1000162497 Ontario Inc. and Maplequest Uptown Developments Inc., sought to enjoin the sale, claiming an automatic right of appeal and stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal was governed by the BIA but found no automatic right of appeal under s. 193(c) because the appellants failed to provide credible evidence that the property's value involved in the appeal exceeded $10,000 in loss.

Consequently, no automatic stay under s. 195 of the BIA applied.

The court also stated that even if a stay were applicable, it would be lifted due to lack of merit and the balance of convenience favoring the Receiver.

The appellants, six defendants in a construction dispute, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request to permanently stay the action.

They argued that a partial settlement between the plaintiff (respondent) and three other defendants (including an insurer) was not immediately disclosed, constituting an abuse of process.

The settlement involved the plaintiff assigning claims to the insurer and contemplating a Pierringer Agreement.

The motion judge found the settlement did not significantly alter the litigation dynamics to require immediate disclosure and that disclosure, if required, was immediate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the settlement did not significantly alter the litigation dynamics, emphasizing that the claims against the settling parties were fundamentally distinct from those against the appellants, and the use of the term "Pierringer Agreement" was not determinative without a substantive change in adversarial positions to cooperative ones.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Gary and Valentina Graf, sought damages for breach of contract after the defendants, Easwara Periyathamby, Chitra Subramaniam, Via Realty Inc., and Mahesan Subramaniam, failed to close on agreements of purchase and sale for two income properties.

The plaintiffs intended to sell these properties to fund the purchase of a restaurant.

The defendants argued that a verbal agreement linked the property sales to the restaurant purchase, stipulating mutual releases and deposit returns if any deal failed, and also alleged misrepresentation regarding one property's use.

The court found no credible evidence of such a verbal agreement or misrepresentation, emphasizing that written contracts with "entire agreement" clauses supersede prior verbal understandings.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering forfeiture of deposits and awarding damages for the loss incurred on the resale of one property, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that a commercial lease was terminated due to a change of ownership clause, an order for the tenant to vacate, and payment of double rent under an overholding clause.

The plaintiff tenant argued the change of ownership clause was unenforceable due to unconscionability, vagueness, or waiver, and that the termination notice was invalid.

The court granted the landlord's motion, finding the change of ownership clause valid and enforceable, rejecting the tenant's arguments regarding unconscionability, ambiguity, and waiver.

The court declared the lease terminated upon the property sale, ordered the tenant to vacate, and found the tenant liable for double rent as an overholding tenant.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, brought an action against the trustees of her late mother's estate, seeking her share of the estate and alleging breaches of trust.

The trust was created in Quebec, the assets were located in Quebec, and the trustees resided outside of Ontario.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The court granted the motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario, that Quebec was the more appropriate forum, and that the forum of necessity doctrine did not apply despite the plaintiff's physical and financial limitations.

The action was stayed and service outside Ontario was set aside.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of an equitable interest in a residential property and other remedies.

The defendants denied the equitable interest and counterclaimed for rental arrears and damages for delay.

The court found an oral agreement for an equitable interest, which was later superseded by a written "Trust Agreement" settling the interest for a specific amount.

The court also found a valid landlord-tenant relationship.

The plaintiff's claim for the agreed-upon buy-out amount was granted, but not for a continuing co-ownership interest.

The defendants' counterclaim for rental arrears was granted in part, but damages for delay were dismissed due to shared responsibility for the delay.

The defendants brought a preliminary motion at trial seeking declarations that the plaintiff's claims were barred by issue estoppel based on prior findings of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The plaintiff claimed an equitable interest and co-ownership in a residential property, while the LTB had previously found him to be a tenant and ordered his eviction.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding that the LTB had no jurisdiction to determine equitable rights of ownership, and therefore the issues before the court were distinct from those decided by the LTB.

The self-represented plaintiffs by counterclaim brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants by counterclaim, which was withdrawn mid-argument after the husband admitted he lacked his wife's authority to proceed.

The defendants by counterclaim sought costs and directions to prevent further steps until outstanding costs were paid.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the husband for unreasonable conduct, including collateral attacks on previous judgments and breaching the implicit warranty of authority.

The court also issued directions prohibiting the plaintiffs by counterclaim from taking further steps without leave or until costs were paid, and barred the husband from representing his wife.