Ashley Madeline Anne Ferguson

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against Gonzalo Raul Aguiar Gadea (now his Estate) and A.D. Group of Companies Inc., alleging significant and prolonged fraud related to investments in the cannabis industry in Uruguay.

The defendants had failed to file proper defences and comply with previous court orders, including a worldwide Mareva injunction and asset declarations.

The court granted partial default judgment against the Estate of Aguiar and A.D. Group for misappropriated funds, finding a strong prima facie case of civil fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The Mareva injunction was continued against the Estate and other defendants, as further claims and tracing of funds remained outstanding.

The appellant, Brian Kumar, sought a review of a single judge's order requiring him to post $5,000 security for costs before proceeding with his motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against Kumar, whose statement of defence was struck due to non-compliance with court orders.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed Kumar's review motion, affirming the original order for security for costs due to his consistent pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

This was a fraudulent conveyance action concerning the transfer of a property from Punit Lala and Pawan Lala to Pawan Lala and Rani Lala.

The transfer occurred after Punit Lala was served with a motion for summary judgment in a fraud action by the applicant, Infolink Technologies Corp. The court found that Punit Lala conveyed the property with the intent to defeat Infolink's ability to collect on a potential judgment, and that the other defendants (Pawan, Rani, and Kishore Lala) either knew about this intent or were wilfully blind to it.

The court also determined that Rani and Pawan Lala were not bona fide purchasers for value, as they did not act in good faith and the property was not transferred at fair market value.

The transfer was declared void as against Infolink, allowing them to execute against Punit Lala's ¼ interest in the property.

Infolink's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring them to pay outstanding legal fees to the respondent law firm.

The appellants argued that the motions judge failed to properly scrutinize the solicitor's accounts, applied the wrong test for summary judgment, and should have directed a reference for an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the summary judgment test, properly reviewed the accounts, and reasonably exercised his discretion not to order a reference given the appellants' failure to comply with the Solicitors Act timelines.

The moving party, a self-represented appellant, sought permission to obtain a transcription of a digital recording of a security for costs hearing to support his review motion.

The responding parties objected to the delay a transcription would cause but agreed to the provision of the digital recording if the review motion was expedited.

The motion judge ordered that the parties be provided with a copy of the digital recording at no cost, subject to an undertaking, and directed an expedited written hearing for the review motion.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing on the basis of illness and a recent change in counsel.

The respondent initially opposed the adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but directed that the appeal proceed in writing, with a timetable for further submissions.

The court also refused to permit the appellants to file new evidentiary material, noting a lack of diligence in pursuing its admission.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, alleging a prolonged fraud involving approximately $27 million intended for cannabis production facilities in Uruguay.

The corporate defendant, A.D. Group, failed to defend the action.

The court found that the deemed admissions established civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Default judgment was granted against A.D. Group for US $11,812,487 and CAD $500,000, and a Mareva injunction was extended.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence for failing to pay a $100,000 costs order and for a history of non-compliance with court orders, including a Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Judge did not reverse the onus, properly considered the lack of evidence regarding the merits of the defence, and correctly identified a pattern of non-compliance rather than making a formal finding of contempt.

The court also rejected the appellant's new argument regarding family law support orders taking precedence, as it was not raised below.

Johnstone & Cowling Management Inc. (JCM) brought a motion under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the stay of proceedings against Hour Media Group Inc. (the bankrupt) and its principal, Carolyn Michele Hourigan, to commence an action for fraud, breach of trust, and conversion.

The bankrupt and Ms. Hourigan did not oppose the motion.

The court adjourned the motion, directing JCM to serve the Office of the Superintendent in Bankruptcy (OSB), emphasizing that the OSB is an interested party in all bankruptcy motions and applications due to its supervisory and intervention powers under the BIA and Bankruptcy Rules.

The court indicated it would grant the order if the OSB did not contact counsel or the court within 10 days of service.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for production orders and examination of the defendants in aid of an existing Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The only contentious issue was a request to order a non-party exchange to provide information regarding the defendants' assets.

The court granted the order, finding it necessary in aid of execution of the Mareva injunction, and rejected the defendants' argument that the request was an improper attempt to gather evidence for a contempt motion.

The plaintiff, 2770095 Ontario Inc., a special purpose vehicle incorporated one day before the assignment, brought an action to recover over $1 million in alleged missing funds from payment processing, assigned from Affinitas Medios de Pago S.A.P.I de C.V. The defendants, Maxwell Dean Morgan and Tricia Edwards, moved to dismiss the action, arguing the assignment was invalid due to champerty and maintenance.

The court found that the assignment of tort claims was champertous, as the plaintiff had no pre-existing commercial or financial interest in the litigation and was created solely to pursue the claim for profit.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process and set aside all interim and interlocutory orders, including Mareva injunctions and certificates of pending litigation.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Plaintiff successfully sought to stay a related fraudulent conveyance action.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the Defendant's position was weak and that a reasonable offer to settle was made.

The Defendant sought to defer costs or have them dismissed.

The court declined to defer costs, finding the Plaintiff successful on the motion.

It awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,000.00 to the Plaintiff, determining that while the Plaintiff's offer was reasonable, it did not trigger Rule 49 consequences, and the Defendant's conduct, though based on a tenuous argument, was not abusive or egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that dismissed their Rule 59.06 motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and imposed a leave requirement for any further motions in the underlying action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, concluding that the Rule 59.06 motion was a third attempt to re-litigate issues already decided, which constituted vexatious conduct and an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

In an action for fraud and breach of contract arising from a relationship between the plaintiff and a former escort, the parties brought motions to resolve various discovery disputes.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce notes used as an aide memoire during his examination for discovery.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to disclose documents relating to his separation agreement, finding that he had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind regarding the transfer of funds in issue.

The defendant's request to examine the plaintiff's wife as a non-party witness was dismissed as unnecessary for the pending motion.

The plaintiff previously obtained a Mareva Order preserving up to $327,000 from the sale of the responding defendant's property.

On the return of the motion, the responding defendant's materials were not filed in time.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment to file reply materials and conduct cross-examinations.

On consent, the court extended the Mareva Order pending a full hearing, released $70,000 to the responding defendant for living expenses and legal fees, and set a timetable for the remaining steps in the action.

The appellants brought a motion to re-open an appeal that had been dismissed on December 18, 2018, and to admit fresh evidence in the form of a three-page affidavit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed fresh evidence consisted partly of argument and partly of statements of fact relating to matters that were either before the court at the hearing or could have been obtained with reasonable diligence.

The court found that none of the evidence would have affected the result.

The fundamental flaw in the appeal—the absence of evidence that the respondent's alleged lien had anything to do with the sale of the appellants' property—was not addressed by the fresh evidence.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 17, 2018.

The respondent was not in attendance when the appeal was scheduled to be heard.

The appellant's counsel requested that the matter be adjourned to be heard together with a related appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed that it was desirable for the two appeals to be heard together and adjourned the matter accordingly.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissal of their claim alleging that the respondent wrongfully issued and enforced a lien against their property.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on two grounds: (1) the claim was statute-barred because the appellants were aware of the lien in 2009 and commenced the action in 2017; and (2) the appellants provided no evidence of damages caused by the alleged lien.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law.

This decision addresses the appropriate penalty for Cosimo “Cosmo” Polidoro, who was found liable for six additional counts of civil contempt for his continuing failure to comply with court orders and undertakings in two separate actions involving fraudulent real estate transactions.

Polidoro had previously been found liable for eight counts of civil contempt and sentenced to incarceration.

The court also determined the plaintiffs' entitlement to and quantum of punitive damages for the frauds perpetrated by Polidoro.

The court found Polidoro's conduct to be egregious, involving repeated lies and evasion, and imposed a six-month custodial sentence, to be served concurrently with existing intermittent sentences.

Additionally, Polidoro was ordered to pay $25,000 in punitive damages to each set of plaintiffs (Boroni and Macaes) and $95,000 in costs to the Boroni Plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to have the defendant found in contempt of court for failing to comply with multiple court orders, including orders to provide an accounting and attend judgment debtor examinations.

The defendant admitted to eight counts of civil contempt, including egregiously lying to the court about his father's death to avoid a court appearance.

The court found the defendant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced him to a 76-day intermittent custodial sentence, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was also ordered to pay $50,000 in costs.