Tariq Wasey Khan

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ appeal from a trial judgment awarding $160,000 to the respondent for loans that were not repaid.

The trial judge’s decision was based on unjust enrichment, as there was no agreement on the term or interest rate of the loans.

The Court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to allow the appellants to withdraw deemed admissions or to introduce late evidence, finding no procedural unfairness.

The Court also found no error in the exclusion of a late-proposed witness and in the trial judge’s unjust enrichment analysis.

This is a summary conviction appeal decision in which Richard Khan appealed his conviction for assault.

The trial judge had acquitted Mr. Khan on a 2015 count but convicted him on a 2019 count, sentencing him to an eight-month conditional sentence.

On appeal, Mr. Khan alleged the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to give sufficient reasons, and misapplied the W.(D.) test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Superior Court found no misapprehension of evidence, no error in the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence or factual findings, and that the reasons for judgment were sufficient.

The court emphasized the deference owed to trial judges’ factual findings and credibility assessments, and clarified the proper application of the W.(D.) test.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the beneficial ownership of four residential properties and a costs award.

The trial judge had found that funds advanced by the respondents were investments, not loans, and made findings on beneficial ownership and renovation quality based on witness credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's factual findings due to the high deference owed to such findings and the appellants' failure to provide a complete trial record.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied as it was out of time and did not meet the high threshold for granting leave.

The court also rejected a new argument raised on appeal concerning the Statute of Frauds, as it was not raised at trial and the necessary record was incomplete.

Following a trial regarding four real estate transactions where the plaintiffs achieved substantial success, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought $579,834.02 on a full indemnity basis, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct and misrepresentations, while the defendants argued for a lower amount.

Applying principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $400,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiffs and defendants engaged in a series of real estate transactions involving four properties, operating largely on oral agreements.

Disputes arose regarding the beneficial ownership of the properties and claims for renovation work performed by the defendants.

The court applied principles of oral contract formation and resulting trust to determine the parties' respective interests based on their financial contributions.

The court found largely in favour of the plaintiffs, granting them sole ownership of two properties, a majority interest in a third, and a half interest in the fourth, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for defective renovation work.

The accused brought an application under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of charges due to unreasonable delay.

The Crown conceded the total delay of 33 months and 10 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan but argued that significant portions were attributable to the defence.

The court analyzed various delay periods, finding that delays related to the accused's efforts to retain counsel, and preliminary hearing scheduling issues caused by Crown unavailability, were not attributable to the defence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the net delay, after subtracting the only conceded defence delay of 21 days, still exceeded the Jordan limit and could not be justified by exceptional circumstances.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought sole or shared parenting, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and occupation rent.

The court granted the mother final decision-making responsibility after consultation with the father, noting the history of domestic violence and the father's failure to accept responsibility.

The court dismissed the father's requests to change the supervised parenting schedule, finding no exceptional circumstances to vary the existing interim order.

The father's claims for partition and sale and occupation rent were also dismissed as premature and inappropriate on an interim basis.

Motion by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto to vary a temporary care and custody order placing an 18-month-old child (F.I.) with the father.

The society sought to return F.I. to the mother's care, subject to society supervision.

The mother supported the motion and provided evidence of material changes in her circumstances since the initial placement order.

The father opposed, arguing the mother had not sufficiently addressed her underlying issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered F.I. returned to the mother's care with society supervision, while maintaining the father's access rights.