Yovindranauth Jaimangal

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision refusing to set aside a registrar's administrative dismissal of her action for delay.

The underlying action involved allegations of an improvident power of sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's findings that the appellant failed to adequately explain the significant delay or establish an intention to proceed, and that the respondents suffered actual prejudice due to the death of a material witness and fading memories.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, Jaswant Singh Kooner, appealed a trial judgment that found he owed his lawyer, Peter Verbeek, outstanding legal fees.

The trial judge had found an oral retainer agreement for fees and disbursements, not a contingent fee, and awarded Verbeek $59,342.42 plus $22,500 in costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding the oral retainer agreement or the reasonableness of the fees.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also dismissed.

The appellants, Twisha Talpade and Vineet Talpade, appealed a lower court order concerning mortgage enforcement and their dismissed counterclaim.

They alleged judicial bias, procedural unfairness, and errors in the calculation of outstanding mortgage amounts and the failure to award them damages.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, noting that the appellants had consented to the lower court's process while represented by counsel.

The court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's factual findings regarding the mortgage amounts or the decision not to award damages, as the counterclaim had been dismissed by consent.

The appeal of the costs order in favour of Jay Parmar and Canada Lend was also dismissed.

The appellant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property and paid a $40,000 deposit.

The transaction failed to close because the appellant could not secure financing.

The appellant sought the return of the deposit, arguing there was an oral agreement that it would be refunded if the sale failed.

The application judge dismissed the application, applying the parol evidence rule to exclude the oral agreement and finding no grounds for relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the written contract governed and that the deposit forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that held them liable for the balance of a business purchase price.

Their defence was based on fraudulent misrepresentations about the business's revenues.

The motion judge had dismissed this defence, relying on an "entire agreement" clause in the purchase agreement and the appellants' opportunities for due diligence.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in law by giving preclusive effect to the entire agreement clause, as such clauses do not immunize against fraudulent misrepresentation.

Furthermore, opportunities for due diligence do not negate a party's right to avoid a contract based on fraudulent misrepresentation if actual knowledge of the untruth was not proven.

The Court concluded that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding the fraudulent misrepresentation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgment and remitting the matter for trial.