In the case of Tyab v Mahmood dated March 14, 2023, the plaintiff, Amaran Tyab, had filed an application in the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 9-7, seeking a judgment of $100,852.75 from the defendant, Farrah Mahmood, representing 50% of the amount owed to the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) for loans made to Agrisol Manufacturing Inc. In the case, Ms. Mahmood had represented herself and had been granted permission for her husband, Tahir Mahmood, to make submissions on her behalf due to language difficulties. Agrisol had been a company incorporated in July 2015 with Mr. Tyab holding 30% of the shares, Ms. Mahmood holding 50%, and Saif Mahmood, not related to Ms. or Mr. Mahmood, holding the remaining shares. The dispute had revolved around the amount owed to BDC and the validity of the personal guarantees provided by Ms. Mahmood and Mr. Tyab. The court had determined that the case had not been suitable for a summary trial due to the complexity of the issues and the significant credibility concerns. It had been unjust to grant judgment to Mr. Tyab considering the raised issues. Moreover, the plaintiff had sought equitable relief, and if any of Ms. Mahmood's allegations had been true, they would have had a direct relation to Mr. Tyab's claim, potentially indicating misconduct. Ultimately, the court had dismissed the plaintiff's application for a summary trial and had left the issue of costs to be decided by the trial judge.