Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central dispute concerns whether a $1.2 million transfer was a loan or a gift.

• Plaintiff sought to amend pleadings to assert new facts and add a claim for equitable mortgage.

• Defendants objected to the proposed amendments based on lateness, prejudice, and legal insufficiency.

• Court allowed the amendment but required detailed particulars of the alleged oral or written agreement.

• No monetary damages were awarded at this stage; however, costs of the application were granted to the defendants.

• Plaintiff must produce further documents and submit to additional discovery before trial.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case involves a financial dispute between Parman Singh Jawanda, a realtor and the plaintiff, and three defendants: Nazmin Hasanali Ismail, Christina Frini Pantelakis, and Heliane Jacqueline Pantelakis. The plaintiff claimed he provided a $1.2 million loan to assist in purchasing a property in Aldergrove in October 2021. The alleged loan was supposed to be repaid within a year. In contrast, the defendants argued that the money was either a gift or had already been substantially repaid.

Originally, the plaintiff's claim included a potential interest in a different property in Powell River, which he later abandoned. He sought instead to strengthen his claim regarding the Aldergrove property through a more clearly stated unjust enrichment theory and to pursue an equitable mortgage remedy. The plaintiff applied for leave to amend his pleadings to include new factual assertions, including that the loan agreement was oral or partly in writing, that the Aldergrove property was meant to secure the loan, and that the defendants had agreed (expressly or impliedly) to register a mortgage on the property.

The defendants opposed the amendments, citing procedural prejudice due to the lateness of the application, inconsistencies with prior discovery evidence, and a lack of sufficient legal foundation—particularly for the equitable mortgage claim, which typically requires a written instrument.

Justice Marzari allowed the amendments, acknowledging that while the equitable mortgage theory was novel and possibly weak, it arose from the same underlying transaction and did not represent an entirely new cause of action. However, the judge emphasized that the plaintiff must provide detailed particulars about the alleged agreement, including specifics about any written terms and oral discussions. These particulars were ordered to be produced within 30 days, along with a revised list of documents and the plaintiff’s availability for further discovery.

The Court found that the defendants would face manageable prejudice and imposed conditions to mitigate it, including extending discovery and granting the defendants an additional two hours for questioning. Although the plaintiff was successful in obtaining permission to amend, the Court ordered him to pay the defendants’ costs of the application due to the procedural issues and delays caused by his late request.

Ultimately, while this decision does not resolve the central question of liability, it sets the stage for a fuller examination of the facts and legal arguments at trial in November 2025.