Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether a five-day trial estimate was agreed upon and whether subsequent developments invalidated that agreement.

• Court found no misrepresentation by defendant’s counsel regarding the trial-length estimate due to contextual explanations provided later.

• Plaintiff’s claim for solicitor-client costs denied due to lack of itemized billing and absence of misconduct justifying elevated cost levels.

• Defendant’s claim for costs related to a discontinued attachment order and 2020 action rejected as those responses were unnecessary or unjustified.

• Allegations of asset dissipation by the defendant failed to meet statutory requirements under the Civil Enforcement Act.

• Court concluded both parties had equal success and ordered that each side bear their own costs of the applications and costs proceedings.

Background and litigation history

In Bannister v Nanda, 2025 ABKB 123, the plaintiff, Melanie Bannister, and the defendant, Swan Nanda (also known as Swann Nanda), were involved in litigation stemming from financial transactions and property ownership issues. The plaintiff claimed to have invested $30,000 in a condominium property under a 2014 “Property Ownership Agreement,” which reflected that the property would be held with 40% ownership for Bannister, and 30% each for Swan and Neelam Nanda. The agreement did not mention a loan or create a land charge.

The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in 2016 and later commenced a second action in 2020 to add additional defendants. That 2020 action was found to be ineffective due to the dissolution of one of the corporate defendants, Realtus Group of Companies Ltd (formerly MVG Market Valuation Group Ltd), which had been struck from the register in 2013. The plaintiff never revived it, rendering the 2020 action a nullity. The second action was later discontinued by court order.

Key issues and proceedings before the court

One key issue was whether the parties had agreed to a five-day trial estimate. The plaintiff referred to an August 6, 2020 email from Mr. Nanda proposing “a 5 day trial just in case,” and claimed there was an agreement. Mr. Nanda argued later developments rendered that estimate obsolete, including outstanding applications and the potential consolidation with the 2020 action.

During a March 17, 2022 appearance before Justice Hillier, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant misrepresented the existence of an agreement on trial length. Justice Lema ultimately found no misrepresentation occurred, noting that Mr. Nanda had tried to provide context and that the five-day estimate was later qualified or superseded. The court ruled no costs were payable by the defendant regarding the 2022 application.

The plaintiff also sought solicitor-client costs related to a set-trial application heard by Justice Lema on April 26, 2023, which led to a June 14, 2023 order. While the plaintiff succeeded in securing the trial date and discontinuance of the 2020 action and other applications, she did not provide sufficient evidence—such as itemized time records—to support her $44,296.14 claim for solicitor-client costs. The court emphasized that such costs are only awarded in rare circumstances involving misconduct, which was not found here.

Attachment order and affidavit issues

A major component of the plaintiff’s filings included an attachment-order and Mareva-injunction application, based on an affidavit alleging improper asset transfers by the defendant. The court found the affidavit failed to provide necessary evidence to support the claim under section 17 of the Civil Enforcement Act. For instance, the affidavit referenced a $160,000 amount but provided no details about it. The court also noted:

• The Property Ownership Agreement did not reflect a loan or security.

• The transfer of land to a numbered company did not constitute asset dissipation.

• The plaintiff failed to prove the legal and market value of the properties or that the defendant's transactions were improper.

• The attachment order application was found to be deficient and bound to fail without requiring a response from the defendant.

Portions of a supplementary affidavit were sealed due to their irrelevance, particularly references to conflict-of-interest concerns that did not materialize into any actual disqualification application. The court granted Schedule-C-level costs to the defendant on this issue but deemed it offset by the plaintiff’s success on the trial scheduling issue.

Final costs ruling

Justice Lema concluded that both parties had partial, balanced success. The plaintiff was successful in scheduling the trial, while the defendant succeeded in narrowing affidavit evidence. Neither party’s conduct met the threshold for elevated cost awards. As a result, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs for the April 26, 2023 application and the overall costs proceedings.

Judgment date and parties

The decision was issued on March 3, 2025, by Justice Michael J. Lema of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. Written submissions were received on August 25, August 29, and September 5, 2023. Michael S. Andrawis represented the plaintiff, and Avnish Nanda of Nanda & Company represented the defendant.