Ayda A-Tabrizi

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a removal application and the approval of an interim passing of accounts in an estate matter.

The applicant sought to remove the estate trustee, alleging mismanagement and self-dealing, and objected to 71 items in the estate accounting.

The applicant abandoned all but one claim before hearing, which was settled during the hearing.

The court awarded costs to the estate trustee on a substantial indemnity basis for the removal application and approved increased costs for the passing of accounts application, with the latter to be paid from estate assets.

The decision concerns the administration of the estate of Faina Rogovsky, focusing on the removal of the estate trustee, the passing of accounts, and the determination of trustee compensation.

The court dismissed the application to remove Josef Rogovsky as estate trustee, approved the interim passing of accounts with modifications, and fixed trustee compensation at $32,000 plus HST.

The court also addressed the parties' disputes over loans, asset valuations, and the conduct of the estate administration, emphasizing the need for clarity, prudence, and fairness in estate management.

The plaintiff brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking a preservation order over cryptocurrency, a worldwide Mareva injunction, and an Anton Piller order against the defendants for an outstanding balance of $300,000 USD from a cryptocurrency exchange.

The court granted the preservation order and the Anton Piller order with modifications to protect solicitor-client privilege, but dismissed the Mareva injunction, finding no sufficient risk of asset dissipation to avoid judgment.

The plaintiff buyer failed to close a real estate transaction due to an inability to secure financing.

The plaintiff attempted to renegotiate the purchase price and deposit, which the defendant sellers rejected.

The defendants subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $5,000 less and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action and release the $65,000 deposit to them.

The court granted the motion, finding no bad faith, no failure to mitigate, and no grounds for relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was reasonable and there was no unconscionability.