Amy Then

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated May 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500.

The Crown and the Madan Defendants brought competing motions regarding the use of funds frozen under a Mareva injunction for legal and living expenses.

Following the disposition of the motions, the Madan Defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the Crown's conduct was calculated to undermine their solicitor-client relationship.

The court found the Crown did not act improperly and awarded costs to the Madan Defendants on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $150,000, reflecting their overall success on the motions.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for an order preserving $543,515 in Canadian currency seized during a murder investigation.

The currency was found in the deceased's residence along with large quantities of controlled substances and drug trafficking paraphernalia.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity and granted the preservation order, noting no interests of justice weighed against it.

The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte Mareva injunction and an interim preservation order against the defendants, who allegedly defrauded a government COVID-19 relief program of at least $11 million.

The moving party brought a motion to vary the Mareva injunction to access frozen funds for legal and living expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to make full disclosure of his worldwide assets and did not discharge the onus of proving that he and his family had no other assets available to pay their expenses.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application under the Civil Remedies Act for the civil forfeiture of $25,610 CAD and $80 USD seized during a drug trafficking investigation.

An interested party opposed the application, claiming the funds were intended for the purchase and export of used cars to Nigeria.

The court found the interested party's evidence lacked credibility and concluded the funds were either proceeds of drug trafficking or an instrument for illegal, unlicensed car trading.

The court held the interested party failed to establish legitimate ownership and ordered the funds forfeited to the Crown.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order prohibiting the respondents from making further motions in the proceedings without leave of a judge, pursuant to Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying matter involved an application for civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, to which the respondents responded with a counter-application seeking four billion dollars and alleging a massive conspiracy.

The court found that the respondents had initiated an endless string of unsuccessful, frivolous, and vexatious motions containing bizarre and scandalous allegations against judges and officials.

Applying the principles for vexatious proceedings, the court granted the motion and ordered costs of $1,500 payable to the Attorney General.