Recent Cases
Thorpe v. Boakye, 2022 ONSC 7176
This was a Defamation case filed by our client, in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. Our client, who is the business owner, was a victim of fake google reviews on the Google listing of her business by one of her customers who is believed to have asked her friends to put negative reviews on the Google platform of our client's google business listing. We requested Google to remove the fake reviews, who refused to comply with our request to get them removed without a court order.
We made Google Inc. as one of the Defendants as there is no law in Canada according to which Google can ask for a court order to remove the fake reviews. Team of lawyers of Google Inc. brought a summary judgement motion to get the case dismissed against our client on the basis that Google is a passive intermediary. We argued the motion on the grounds that Google Inc. becomes a deemed publisher once it is informed that the reviews on my client's profile are fake and they do not nothing to verify or stop publishing it on their platform. We also argued that Google is not a passive intermediary if it has control on its platform and has the ability to stop publishing the said fake reviews. The Honourable Court agreed with our arguments and the summary judgement motion of Google Inc. was dismissed with costs of the motion granted to our client.
Wasim Investments Ltd. vs. Ranganathan et al 2023 ONSC 6507
This was a duplicate action started in Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, against our clients, by the director of Wasim Investments Ltd., who is the individual defendant, in another case already started by our clients and pending before the Honourable Court, with allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against the above said individual defendant. The above said duplicate action was based on the same facts and same cause of action as our case. The only difference was that the corporation was the plaintiff in this duplicate action who had no privity of contract with our clients or any legal standing against our clients to start an action. The Corporate Plaintiff, Wasim Investments Ltd. added the corporation of our clients as one of the defendants in the duplicate action. We brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) (b)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to get the duplicate action dismissed as this duplicate action was based on the same facts and the same cause of action. The Court also agreed with our arguments that the duplicate action was based on the same facts and was a waste of precious judicial resources. The Corporate Plaintiff in the duplicate action was not able to establish any relationship with any of the defendants, who were our clients, in this duplicate action. The above said duplicate action was dismissed by the Honourable Court and costs granted to our clients.
Wasim Investments Ltd. v. Ranganathan, 2024 ONCA 505
The Corporate Plaintiff, Wasim Investments Ltd. whose duplicate action was dismissed in Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, filed an Appeal in Court of Appeal in Ontario, challenging the decision of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, to dismiss its action. The appeal of Wasim Investments Ltd. was also dismissed. The Panel of Judges of the Honourable Court of Appeal for Ontario also held that the duplicate action was a waste of judicial resources, as they agreed with the decision of the Superior Court of Justice. Our clients were granted costs in the Appeal.
Khan v. Pandey, 2021 ONSC 3105
This was a case for breach of a real estate contract, in which the purchaser of the real estate transaction failed to close the transaction. The purchaser also refused to release the deposit, held by the listing real estate brokerage, to our client. We represented the seller of this real estate transaction. We bought a summary judgement motion as the facts in this case were clear and there was no need to go to Trial. We were successful in the Summary Judgement motion and the above said summary judgement motion was allowed by the Honourable Court along with the costs being granted to our client.
Umair Khan v. Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards, 2020 ONLAT GAR 12167
This was the Appeal before Licence Appeal Tribunal of Ontario, filed by our client against the decision of the Inspector of Ministry of Transportation to revoke the licence of our client, for Motor Vehicle Inspection Mechanic. We challenged the above said decision of the Ministry of Transportation and successfully argued the case before the honourable member of the Licence Appeal Tribunal of Ontario.The Appeal was allowed by the above said member and the licence of our client, as Motor Vehicle Inspection Mechanic, was not revoked.
SUKHJEET SINGH v MCI, IMM-4731-22
This was the Application for Leave and Judicial Review filed by our client in Federal Court of Canada, in an immigration case, in which the immigration officer incorrectly refused the study permit application of our client on the basis that our client had not applied for restoration status. We submitted the memorandum of arguments in Court with evidence establishing that our client had applied for restoration status. The lawyer of the Minister of Immigration, who was representing the minister in this case, contacted us and advised that the Minister would correct its error and the error was corrected, thereby resolving the issue of our client, as his study permit application was processed by the Minister of Immigration.