Yoven Jaimangal

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's administrative dismissal of an action for delay.

The action arose from a disputed power of sale process undertaken by the defendants as mortgagees in October 2014.

The plaintiff commenced the action in March 2015 seeking $300,000 in damages and an accounting.

Over nearly ten years, the action proceeded only through pleadings and exchange of affidavits of documents, with examinations for discovery never occurring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive litigation delay, failed to demonstrate a genuine intention to prosecute the action, and that significant prejudice resulted from the delay, including the death of a key witness with firsthand knowledge of the disputed events.

The plaintiff, Michael Forstner, sued the defendants, Manbir Singh Sandhu, Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, and Computer Window Inc., for conversion of a computer/dialer and for assault and battery following an altercation.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.

It found that the plaintiff failed to prove conversion, as the computer was returned, and that the alleged assault and battery by Mrs. Sandhu was not established on a balance of probabilities.

The plaintiff's credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistent evidence regarding the purchase date and timeline of events.

Damages for conversion and personal injury were also not proven.

The defendants' counterclaim was withdrawn at the outset of the trial.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for a defaulted second mortgage.

While the parties agreed on the mortgage's maturity and the principal amount owing, they disputed the exact date of default, the amount of interest owed, and other damage claims, including NSF cheque fees and alleged cash payments by the guarantor.

The court granted summary judgment on the core issues of mortgage default and the principal amount owing, entitling the plaintiff to an order for possession and to continue the sale process.

However, due to genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the specific amounts payable, a reference was directed under Rule 64.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine these disputed amounts.