Alexander Wilkes

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and terminate garnishments, arguing improper service of the statement of claim and a plausible defence under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants promptly sought relief, provided a plausible excuse for default (lack of notice), and demonstrated an arguable defence.

The court emphasized the 'better practice' of serving default judgment motions and ordered the return of garnished funds (except for a small undisputed amount) as no exceptional circumstances for a freezing order were shown.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against two defendants, one of whom was only known by the pseudonym 'Sam', for monies advanced in a fraudulent investment scheme.

The court validated service on the unidentified defendant via email and noted both defendants in default.

The court found that the defendants engaged in civil fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, awarding the plaintiff $104,616 in damages.

Claims for aggravated and punitive damages were dismissed.

The Crown applied for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating their restaurant in defiance of COVID-19 lockdown regulations.

The respondents had openly defied the Stage 1 Regulation by offering indoor and patio dining despite being in a lockdown zone.

The court found a clear breach of the regulation and no exceptional circumstances to refuse the statutory injunction.

The restraining order was granted, and costs were fixed at $15,000.

Following a successful motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, the defendant sought costs of over $25,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff did not respond to the costs submissions.

The court found the requested amount excessive for a straightforward motion without cross-examinations and fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendant, Anna Kisti, moved to set aside a Mareva injunction and for security for costs.

The plaintiff, Karoline Kisti Sr., had obtained the injunction ex parte, freezing Anna's bank accounts and preventing alienation of her interest in a property.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including prior litigation history with another daughter and Anna's financial contributions to her mother.

Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to establish a real risk of asset dissipation or removal from the jurisdiction.

The motion to set aside the Mareva injunction was granted, while the motion for security for costs was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's inability to pay costs and the action not being frivolous.