Caroline Ellen Annmarie Abela

Following a decision granting judgment in favour of the respondents on an application involving a mortgagee's right to sell property, the respondents sought costs of $270,292.15.

The applicant opposed costs on the basis that the respondents had provided a misleading answer to the court regarding the arm's-length nature of a proposed purchaser, which was subsequently assigned to an entity connected to an investor behind the second mortgage.

The court found the respondents' refusal to answer follow-up questions about the assignment and the relationship between the purchaser and the investor raised serious doubts about the accuracy of representations made during the proceeding.

Exercising its discretion to depart from the general principle that costs follow the event, the court declined to award costs to the successful party as a sanction for non-cooperation with the court.

This costs decision addresses the allocation of costs for a distribution motion concerning competing claims over preserved funds in a complex fraud and investment scheme case.

The Trial Parties, who succeeded at trial on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims, sought to recover their judgment from preserved funds.

The Settling Parties, who had reached settlement agreements with the defendants before trial, sought equitable liens and constructive trusts over the same preserved funds.

The court awarded costs to the Trial Parties against the Settling Parties, finding that the Settling Parties had deliberately delayed enforcement of their settlements and improperly sought to benefit from the Trial Parties' litigation efforts without bearing the associated costs and burdens.

The moving party, Hermina Developments Inc., sought a stay of an order permitting the respondents to sell a 26.7-acre parcel of land in Woodstock, Ontario, pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, Hermina failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court held that any losses could be compensated by damages and that the property was not unique.

The respondents were awarded costs.

The plaintiff sought the continuation of an interim Mareva injunction against multiple defendants, alleging fraud and dissipation of assets.

The court found an overwhelming case of fraud by Stephen Lee Heimbecker and Nestig Inc., and a prima facie case of joint participation, willful blindness, or assistance in the fraud by Joanna Marie Heimbecker and Keystone Capital Inc. The court determined that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva Order, including the release of certain frozen funds to the plaintiff.

The court rejected Joanna Marie Heimbecker's requests to open a new bank account for future employment income and to sell jewellery for legal expenses and tuition, citing a lack of complete and accurate financial disclosure and serious inconsistencies.

The court also declined to reduce the living expense exemption for the Heimbeckers at this stage but left open the possibility if disclosure issues persist.

The plaintiff, Bradley J. Grant Investments Inc. (Grant), brought a motion for interim Mareva and Norwich orders against Nestig Inc. and Stephen Lee Heimbecker, along with other related parties.

Grant alleged a fraud exceeding $51 million, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming that Heimbecker induced advances for specific investments but failed to provide documentation or repay funds.

Heimbecker contended the relationship was a simple debt evidenced by promissory notes and denied fraud.

The court found Grant established a strong prima facie case of fraud, breach of trust, and/or breach of fiduciary duty, primarily due to Heimbecker's failure to disclose the use of advanced funds.

The court also found a serious risk of asset dissipation, noting Heimbecker's liquidation of assets (racehorses, farm, home) and potential relocation.

The interim Mareva injunction was granted to preserve assets, and the Norwich order was granted to compel financial institutions to disclose information, as Heimbecker was the only practical source and had refused disclosure.

The moving parties (defendants/appellants) sought to set aside parts of a motion judge's order that lifted an automatic stay of a fraud judgment and ordered payment into court.

The basis for their request was the motion judge's failure to consider a Croatian share transfer document.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the Croatian document lacked evidentiary weight as it was not accompanied by a certified English translation as required by s. 125(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, was not produced at trial, and was attached to an affidavit from an unreliable witness containing hearsay.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a U.S. resident with no assets in Ontario, in a complex family dispute over trust funds.

The plaintiff claimed impecuniosity and that his action was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated impecuniosity with sufficient financial disclosure and that, while the merits were not decisive, they favored granting security due to prior releases.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs totaling $130,000 on a partial indemnity scale, balancing the plaintiff's access to justice with the defendants' protection against an unenforceable costs award.

In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.

Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.

The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.

However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.

The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.