A. Speigel

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment regarding a dispute over a boat allegedly included in a real estate purchase.

The court previously ordered the plaintiffs to serve the motion record on the defendants.

The plaintiffs served the materials on lawyers who had not formally gone on the record for the defendants.

The court held that delivery to lawyers who are not counsel of record is not proper service under Rule 16.01(4)(b) and ordered the plaintiffs to serve the defendants personally or by an alternative to personal service.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to exclude the defendants from each other's examinations for discovery and to prevent the sharing of discovery transcripts and information among them.

The underlying action alleged fraudulent transfers of funds and land to thwart the collection of previous judgments.

Applying the Lazar principles, the court found sufficient evidence of deceit and improper conduct to justify the orders to prevent collusion and ensure the integrity of the discovery process.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, the Ontario Securities Commission, moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the transfer of a Welland home from the defendants, a husband and wife, to the wife alone was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors.

The husband owed an outstanding fine to the plaintiff for breaches of the Securities Act.

The court found that the transfer was made for nominal consideration and with the acknowledged intent to protect the property from creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, declaring the conveyance fraudulent and void, and alternatively found that the husband retained an interest in the property via resulting and constructive trusts.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for over $523,000 allegedly owing on a custom home construction project, claiming the project evolved without a fixed price.

The defendants argued they had an all-inclusive contract for $540,000, which they had fully paid, and counterclaimed for construction deficiencies.

The court found the plaintiff's principal deliberately lied, fabricated documents, and created false paper trails.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim entirely, ordered the construction lien discharged, and allowed the defendants' counterclaim for $65,112.86 to repair deficiencies.