Zaheed Moral

The appellant initiated an application seeking various reliefs concerning his parents' guardianship and property, including removing an attorney and an accounting for alleged undue influence.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant abandoned key challenges, including those related to powers of attorney and capacity.

The application judge dismissed the remaining claims, finding no live issues or cognizable causes of action.

The appellant appealed, arguing errors in the dismissal and the costs order, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the abandoned claims left no relevant issues for adjudication and upheld the discretionary costs order.

The appellant, Farzana Ratan Sonia, appealed a motion judge's order recognizing a Bangladesh talaq divorce and setting aside prior consent orders.

The recognition of the foreign divorce precluded her claims for spousal support and equalization of net family property in Ontario due to limitation periods and the interpretation of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Bangladesh divorce, governed by the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, was not a "bare" talaq divorce and satisfied Canadian requirements for recognition due to state oversight and notice provisions.

The court also upheld the setting aside of consent orders due to the appellant's misrepresentation about her subsequent marriage.

Following the dismissal of a guardianship application, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant had abandoned his claims on the eve of the hearing after failing to undermine a court-ordered capacity assessment of his mother.

The court found the applicant's procedural complaints insufficient to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $100,000 each to his sister and mother on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a non-competition agreement.

The motion was adjourned because the defendants' counsel had difficulty serving their client and lacked instructions, and the individual defendant was not aware of the motion.

The court also noted deficiencies in the plaintiffs' evidentiary materials regarding the similarities of the businesses.

The court directed the defendants' counsel to promptly bring a motion to be removed from the record and ensure the defendants are properly notified of the pending motion.

This appeal concerned a failed condominium purchase where the central issue was the vendor's compliance with the Tarion Warranty Corporation Addendum, specifically regarding the delivery of an occupancy permit or confirmation of occupancy conditions.

The application judge found that no occupancy permit was required and that a letter from the builder was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal found a palpable and overriding error in the application judge's finding that the letter was *delivered* as required by the Addendum.

The evidence showed the letter was merely available for pick-up, not delivered.

The Court allowed the appeal, declared the vendor in breach of the agreement of purchase and sale, and ordered a reference to determine damages, along with costs to the appellants.

In a mortgage enforcement action, the defendant mortgagor brought an urgent motion seeking to discharge the plaintiff's mortgages upon payment into court of a reduced amount to be fixed by the court.

The mortgagor had arranged a last-minute sale of the property that would not yield sufficient proceeds to pay the full amount claimed by the mortgagee.

The court declined to schedule an urgent hearing to summarily assess the disputed mortgage amounts, noting the urgency was self-imposed and the mortgagee would be prejudiced by releasing its security without full payment.

The court ordered that discharges be granted only upon payment of the full amounts claimed, with contested amounts to be paid into court or trust.

The added defendants (purchasers) moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff, to lift a stay on a writ of possession, and for the return of their purchase funds after a failed real estate closing.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPL and that the equities favoured the purchasers.

The court discharged the CPL, lifted the stay on the writ of possession, and ordered the vendors' solicitor to immediately return the purchase funds to the purchasers, as the vendors failed to provide vacant possession and clear title on closing.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application for compensation for flood damage to a leased condominium unit.

The Board found the tenants were not negligent when a bathroom faucet leaked and they could not locate the shut-off valve, and that their failure to maintain insurance did not render them liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's negligence analysis and noting the landlord failed to prove that the tenants' lack of insurance caused her loss.

The Tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., sought partial indemnity costs after successfully applying under s. 23 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, where the Landlord, Eli Messica, had unreasonably withheld consent to a lease assignment.

The Tenant requested $18,417.86, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Landlord opposed, arguing the Tenant's lawyer's time was excessive and proposing a reduced award of $10,356.45.

The court found the Tenant's lawyer's hourly rate modest and the time expended reasonable for an important matter, ultimately awarding the Tenant the full requested costs.

The tenant, 6791971 Canada Inc., applied for a court order determining that the landlord, Eli Messica, unreasonably withheld consent to assign a commercial lease to Moksha Enterprise Ltd. The landlord initially expressed satisfaction with the proposed assignee but later rescinded consent, citing concerns that the assignee might seek to renegotiate rent and that the tenant was in default of lease renewal agreement improvements.

The court found that the landlord's primary stated reason for refusal (assignee seeking rent renegotiation) dissipated after the assignee confirmed its intent to abide by the lease terms.

The court also determined that the landlord's subsequent reliance on the tenant's alleged defaults was an after-the-fact justification and not the genuine reason for refusal at the time.

The application was granted, concluding that the landlord's refusal was unreasonable.