Premich v. Dhaliwal

Premich v. Dhaliwal

Summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiffs' evidence of Dr. Dhaliwal's uncontradicted assurance and his fiduciary relationship satisfied the requirements of s.178.1(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy Act, leaving no triable issue; Pardeep Dhaliwal's conduct was part of that fraud; costs were reduced because some awarded amounts were not costs of the litigation.

Citation
2007 ONCA 740
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Rita Premich; Respondent (plaintiff): Peter Premich; Appellant (defendant): Yadvinder Dhaliwal; Appellant (defendant): Pardeep Dhaliwal; Appellant (defendant): Javrasukh Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment Motion / Court of Appeal for Ontario Hearing Appeal From Order of Justice J. Spence (superior Court) Dated January 12, 2007
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except that the motion judge's costs award was reduced by $9,035; respondents awarded costs of the appeal $12,000 all inclusive.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fiduciary Duty, Bankruptcy Act S.178.1(d) and (e), Costs Allocation
Source Language
English
Civil Bankruptcy Professional Negligence Fraud Summary Judgment Fiduciary Duty Bankruptcy Act S.178.1(d) and (e) Costs Allocation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rita Premich

Respondent (plaintiff)

Peter Premich

Respondent (plaintiff)

Yadvinder Dhaliwal

Appellant (defendant)

Pardeep Dhaliwal

Appellant (defendant)

Javrasukh Inc.

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment Motion / Court of Appeal for Ontario Hearing Appeal From Order of Justice J. Spence (superior Court) Dated January 12, 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly granted on uncontradicted evidence
  2. 2 Whether a physician owed a fiduciary duty and made representations that satisfy exceptions in s.178.1(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy Act
  3. 3 Whether Pardeep Dhaliwal's conduct formed part of the fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiffs' evidence of Dr. Dhaliwal's uncontradicted assurance and his fiduciary relationship satisfied the requirements of s.178.1(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy Act, leaving no triable issue; Pardeep Dhaliwal's conduct was part of that fraud; costs were reduced because some awarded amounts were not costs of the litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except that the motion judge's costs award was reduced by $9,035; respondents awarded costs of the appeal $12,000 all inclusive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed except as varied to reduce the costs awarded by the motion judge by $9,035.
  • Respondents awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $12,000 all inclusive.