Zain Naqi

The Respondent sought a pre-trial ruling to preclude the Applicant from raising issues related to the ownership, control, or valuation of certain companies (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The Respondent argued irrelevance, abuse of process due to a parallel civil action, issue estoppel from a prior disclosure motion, lack of necessary parties, and insufficient pleadings.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding the Applicant's claims relevant to net family property and support, no abuse of process as the legal issues differed from the civil action, no issue estoppel as the prior ruling was on disclosure, and no preclusion due to non-joinder of parties or insufficient pleadings, as the Respondent had clear notice of the issues.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought to recover over $3 million from individual defendants under personal guarantees for a family company's loans.

The defendants appealed a summary judgment, arguing that their liability was joint and several and limited to a global amount based on bank employee misrepresentations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by not adequately explaining the rejection of the defendants' unchallenged evidence regarding misrepresentation and by misapplying the entire agreement clause.

A trial was ordered to determine the scope of liability under the guarantees.

The applicant, Hudson's Bay Company, sought judicial review of a regulation that required its department stores to close during the COVID-19 pandemic while allowing big box stores that sell groceries to remain open.

The applicant argued the distinction was irrational and ultra vires the enabling statute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the regulation was authorized by the Reopening Ontario Act and consistent with its purpose of balancing public health measures with economic concerns.

The court held that it is not the role of the judiciary to assess the wisdom or efficacy of the government's policy choices.

The appellant, a police officer, was criminally charged following an SIU investigation into a training exercise explosion.

After the charges were stayed, he sued his fellow officers and the police board for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office, alleging they intentionally misled the SIU.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding it was a workplace dispute governed exclusively by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the claim involved an independent criminal investigation outside the workplace, and therefore the court's jurisdiction was not ousted.

In a CCAA proceeding involving a condominium project, the debtor sought to disclaim pre-sale agreements with unit purchasers.

The purchasers brought a motion for the production of an unredacted appraisal report referenced in the debtor's affidavit.

The court held that while the mandatory production requirement under Rule 30.04(2) is subject to discretion in CCAA proceedings, fairness and transparency required production of the unredacted report to the purchasers, subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

Cross-motions by a contingent creditor and real estate brokers for production of the reports were dismissed due to their lesser need and potential conflicts of interest.

The applicants, a physician and three corporate entities operating independent health facilities, sought judicial review of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to set off $1.6 million in future facility fees against alleged past overbilling.

The Ministry had also alleged overbilling of physician fees but refused to issue a final notice that would allow the physician to seek an independent adjudication before the Physician Payment Review Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Ministry had no express or implied statutory authority under the Independent Health Facilities Act to impose the set-off.

Furthermore, the court held that the Ministry acted unreasonably in relying on equitable set-off to avoid an independent adjudication of the billing dispute.

The court granted the application and issued an order of mandamus requiring the Ministry to reimburse the applicants for the facility fees taken pursuant to the unlawful set-off decision.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs.

The defamation claim arose from an article published by the defendants, insolvency professionals, commenting on public receivership proceedings.

The court found that the defendants' expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their claim had substantial merit or that the defendants had no valid defence, particularly regarding the defence of justification (truth) and responsible communication.

The court also found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficiently credible evidence of serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' freedom of expression.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

An appeal from a motor vehicle accident trial in which the appellant, driving while impaired, collided with the respondents' vehicle, causing the death of a young child and serious injuries to family members.

Liability was admitted.

The appellant raised five grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's determination of threshold issues under the Insurance Act, the admissibility of expert evidence, awards for loss of care, guidance and companionship, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no bias, no error in the admission of expert evidence from a psychologist, no excessive damages awards, and no error in principle in the costs determination.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment finding the indemnifier liable under an indemnity agreement for unpaid rent and related losses.

The indemnifier challenged the finding of liability based on alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations by the landlord regarding park improvements.

The court upheld the finding of liability, rejecting the misrepresentation defence.

On the quantum issue, the court dismissed the indemnifier's appeal regarding restoration costs and legal fees, but allowed the landlord's cross-appeal to extend liability for future rent through the end of the lease term, subject to mitigation credits.

The parties sought to settle an order following a decision finding the respondent in breach of an indemnity agreement related to a commercial lease.

The applicant landlord requested that the order include rent payable through to the end of the lease term, an issue not raised during the initial application.

The court held that while a lease is a commercial contract allowing for damages post-termination, the landlord has a duty to mitigate.

Because the landlord provided no evidence that the loss of future rent was unavoidable, the court declined to include an award for rent beyond the date previously determined.

The applicant landlord brought an application to enforce an indemnity agreement against the respondent guarantor after the tenant defaulted on a commercial lease.

The respondent argued the application should be converted to a trial, alleging it was induced to sign the indemnity by negligent misrepresentations regarding park signage and access.

The court found no evidence of specific, actionable representations and held that the absolute and unconditional terms of the indemnity agreement, along with the parol evidence rule, precluded the respondent's defence.

The application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay rent arrears, restoration costs, and legal fees.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a personal oppression order against a corporate director under s. 241(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

It reaffirmed a two-pronged framework requiring that oppressive conduct be attributable to the director and that personal liability be fit in all the circumstances.

The Court identified fairness, narrow tailoring to rectify oppression, vindication of reasonable stakeholder expectations, and consistency with the broader corporate law context as guiding principles.

On the facts, the director’s lead role in the non-conversion decision and personal benefit through increased corporate control supported personal liability, and the pleadings were sufficient to ground that remedy.