Avrum D. Slodovnick

The plaintiff mortgagee brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor following a default on a $5.5 million loan.

The defendant failed to comply with the timetable, serve materials, or file a fresh statement of defence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted judgment for the principal, interest, and fees totaling over $6 million, along with a writ of possession and substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants sought a stay of an action under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 based on an arbitration clause in a shareholders’ agreement relating to a restaurant venture.

The plaintiff alleged fraudulent misrepresentation inducing him to enter the agreement, breach of fiduciary duties, and oppressive conduct.

The court held that the misrepresentation and fiduciary duty claims were tort-based and did not rely on the shareholders’ agreement, placing them outside the arbitration clause.

Although the oppression allegations relied on contractual obligations and fell within the clause, the court declined to order a partial stay because most claims were non-arbitrable and separation would create duplicative proceedings.

The motion for a stay was therefore dismissed.

On an adjournment appearance following a prior order, the court was asked to resolve two disputed terms of a draft order pending the return of a motion.

The first issue concerned whether defendants could withdraw $500 each or $500 in total per week for living expenses from a corporate bank account subject to court supervision.

The court interpreted the prior order and determined the permitted withdrawal was $500 per week in total for the named individuals.

The second issue concerned a proposed requirement that certain defendants produce monthly bank account statements; the court ordered that provision deleted pending further proceedings.

Costs of the attendance were reserved to the judge hearing the motion on the return date.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors following a default judgment in earlier litigation, commenced a new action alleging that the original defendants and related parties were dissipating or concealing assets to defeat execution.

On an ex parte motion, they sought a Mareva injunction, a Norwich order directed at major banks, a certificate of pending litigation over property allegedly improved using misappropriated assets, leave to amend the notice of action to add further defendants, and a sealing order.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation based on prior findings of dishonesty and non‑compliance with court orders in related proceedings.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, the Norwich order requiring banks to search for and produce records at the plaintiffs’ expense, the certificate of pending litigation, and leave to amend pleadings.

A temporary sealing order was also granted under the Dagenais/Mentuck framework pending the return of the Mareva injunction.

A lender sought judgment against additional defendants after advancing a $30,000 loan evidenced by a promissory note signed by two borrowers.

The defendants’ statement of defence had previously been struck for failure to comply with disclosure orders, and default judgment had already been granted against the signatories to the promissory note.

The plaintiff alleged that other defendants induced the loan through misrepresentations that they owned their residence and would stand behind repayment.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s testimony and inferred that the residence had been placed in a family member’s name to shield assets from creditors.

Judgment was granted against the additional defendants for the outstanding balance with post‑judgment interest and substantial indemnity costs.