Tushar Sabharwal

This is a foreclosure action on a mortgage originally given in 1993 by 830990 Ontario Ltd. to 823042 Ontario Inc., allegedly assumed by 1305268 Ontario Inc. in 2006.

The plaintiff claimed the mortgage went into default in 2011 and sought foreclosure for over $2.5 million in unpaid interest.

The defendant argued the entire claim was a fraud orchestrated by Kenneth James, a disgruntled shareholder.

The court found that the plaintiff's principal witnesses, Marco Lorenti and Kenneth James, were not credible.

The court determined that the mortgage was never renewed or validly transferred to the plaintiff, that the renewal letters and transfer document were forged, and that the plaintiff was not the valid holder of the mortgage.

The action was dismissed.

Additionally, the court found the claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The Debtor (2184698 Ontario Inc.) brought a motion seeking to stop the court-appointed Receiver's sale process of a mortgaged property and for a declaration that the Receiver breached its duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Debtor alleged deficiencies in the listing price and asymmetrical information sharing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no breach of the Receiver's duty to act in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner.

The court held that the Receiver's actions, including the listing price based on appraisals and consultation with the Lender, were appropriate and in the best interests of all stakeholders.

The motion was deemed premature, and a previously granted interlocutory injunction was vacated, allowing the sale process to proceed.

Costs were awarded against the Debtor.

This decision concerns a re-assessment of damages in a breach of contract action, remitted by the Court of Appeal due to insufficient evidence in the initial trial.

The plaintiff, Fermar Paving Limited, sought damages from the defendant, 567723 Ontario Limited, for increased costs of aggregate and out-of-pocket expenses after the defendant repudiated a supply agreement.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the increased cost of aggregate to be largely inadmissible and unproven, particularly concerning cost estimates and missing source documents.

However, the court awarded damages for certain out-of-pocket costs that were adequately substantiated.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the deadline for setting their action down for trial, which was facing administrative dismissal for delay under Rule 48.14(1).

The significant delay of 3.5 years was attributed to a series of associate lawyers at the plaintiffs' firm failing to advance the file.

The defendants opposed the extension, arguing the explanation for delay was inadequate, but conceded they suffered no actual prejudice.

The court, applying the two-part test from Faris v. Eftimovski and considering its overriding discretion, found that despite the uncompelling explanation for counsel's delay, the action should proceed given the plaintiffs were not at fault and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted, extending the deadline, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 16, 2017.

The appeal was abandoned on consent, and costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 payable to the respondent.