Cory A. Gilmore

The moving party Plaintiffs ("AFEX") sought a continuation of an ex parte Mareva injunction against the Defendants (MBM Trading, Mendel Streicher, and Emmeco Inc.).

AFEX's claim arose from six USD wire transactions totaling over $845,000 that were initiated by MBM but subsequently rejected by MBM's financial institutions due to insufficient funds or frozen accounts.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, inferring that Streicher knew or was wilfully blind to the frozen status of his accounts when initiating the transactions.

The court rejected the Defendants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and the absence of a signed account agreement, finding that the parties' conduct implied an agreement to Ontario jurisdiction and that a mediation clause did not preclude urgent interlocutory relief.

The court also found a serious risk of asset dissipation, noting Streicher's lack of transparency regarding the use of AFEX funds and his rapid repayment of other creditors.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the MBM Defendants were ordered to provide a sworn statement of worldwide assets and submit to examinations.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for an order requiring Andrew Willis to pass accounts for his mother, Ruth Ilene Willis, from January 1, 2015, and to replace him as interim Guardian of Property.

Andrew Willis, acting under a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property since May 2, 2018, consented to the PGT becoming guardian after the sale of his mother's home, and sought to limit the accounting period to his appointment date.

The court found Andrew Willis acted in a fiduciary capacity since at least 2015 and ordered him to provide detailed explanations for financial transactions from January 1, 2015, and a formal passing of accounts from May 2, 2018, to July 31, 2020.

The court also ordered the PGT to be appointed temporary Guardian of Property for Mrs. Willis as of August 1, 2020, regardless of the home's sale, citing Andrew's conflict of interest and neglect of his mother's welfare.

The applicant obtained ex-parte Mareva and Norwich orders against his brother and sister-in-law, alleging they mismanaged a jointly owned corporation and breached an oral trust agreement.

The respondents moved to set aside the orders, arguing material non-disclosure and failure to meet the evidentiary threshold.

The court agreed, finding the applicant failed to disclose relevant correspondence and that contradictory evidence precluded a strong prima facie case.

However, given evidence of potential misappropriation, the court ordered a forensic accounting and froze the respondents' real property pending the investigation.

The respondents brought a motion to vary a consent order registered on title to land, seeking to limit its application to only lots relevant to the dispute.

The applicants opposed, citing the respondents' breaches of obligations under the consent order and minutes of settlement, and concerns about related companies.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents did not meet the high threshold to vary a consent order, as the "new facts" (PIN assignments) were foreseeable, and the respondents had demonstrated a disregard for their obligations, justifying the applicants' concerns about security.

The respondents brought a motion seeking a contempt order against the applicant for breaching a disclosure order, an order to set aside restraining orders against Wilfred Abraham, and an order to appoint an inspector for Scorpio Specialty Services Inc. The court dismissed the contempt claim, finding non-compliance but not intentional breach.

It terminated the restraining orders against Wilfred Abraham, concluding they were no longer necessary due to changed circumstances and the applicant's inconsistent positions regarding Abraham's status.

The court granted the request to appoint BDO as an inspector under s. 161(2) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, finding a prima facie case that the business affairs may have unfairly disregarded security holder interests, with the respondents initially bearing the investigation costs subject to re-apportionment at trial.

The applicant sought an interim Mareva injunction against the respondents and several related entities, alleging breaches of a co-owners agreement, a distribution order, and misappropriation of funds in a real estate development project.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for the release of occupancy fees.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for a Mareva injunction, finding that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation, or irreparable harm, and that the undertaking as to damages was insufficient.

The court granted the respondents' motion for the release of occupancy fees.

The applicant, Panagiota Aggelakos, sought the appointment of The Canada Trust Company as Guardian of Property for her incapable parents, Nikolaos and Kostadina Aggelakos, due to the respondent, Ioannis Aggelakos's, persistent non-cooperation and failure to abide by a prior settlement agreement.

The respondent, co-attorney with the applicant, opposed the appointment, arguing it was against his parents' wishes and that he intended to cooperate.

The court found that the respondent's lack of cooperation, including failure to open a joint bank account for two years, resulting in significant lost interest income, and his submission of unsworn and late material, created an injustice for the incapable parents.

The court varied the prior settlement and ordered the appointment of The Canada Trust Company as Guardian of Property for both parents.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application and notice of objection as statute-barred.

The applicant argued her prior filings constituted a "proceeding" within the limitation period or that she was self-represented and unaware of the need to issue an application.

The court found the limitation period began at the date of death or notice of objection, and that neither a notice of objection nor a notice of appearance constituted a "proceeding" under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also rejected the argument that the claims were solely for declaratory relief to avoid the limitation period.

The respondent's motion was granted, and the application was dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's impecuniosity and the difficult result.

The applicants sought a declaration of ownership over certain equipment and assets ("BuiltRite Assets") and an order compelling respondents to release them, asserting a first-ranking security interest.

The dispute centered on whether a Quitclaim effectively transferred ownership of "Trailered Assets" to Strongco Plastics Ltd. The respondents argued the Quitclaim lacked certainty and consideration, and that claims against the Hernandezes were stayed due to bankruptcy.

Marcelo Hernandez also cross-applied for compensation for work performed.

The court found the Quitclaim unenforceable due to lack of certainty and consideration, dismissing the applicants' claims regarding asset ownership.

The court also found ESC Enterprises Inc. unjustly enriched by Marcelo Hernandez's services and awarded him compensation.

Marian Carroll, a former TD employee, brought an application seeking an order to compel The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries (TD Waterhouse Private Investment Counsel Inc. and TD Asset Management Inc., as Trustees of the TD Mutual Funds Trust and TD Private Funds Trust) to pass their accounts, alleging misconduct and breaches of trust.

The Respondents moved to strike the application for lack of standing.

The court found that Carroll lacked private interest standing as she was not a beneficiary or unitholder and had no direct financial interest in the trusts.

The court also rejected public interest standing, concluding that the application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the matter before the court, given other available avenues for beneficiaries and regulatory bodies.

The Respondents' motion to strike was granted, and Carroll's application was dismissed with costs.

This motion, initiated by the Receiver, determined competing priorities under s.78 of the Construction Act between construction lien claimants (represented by Maxion Management Services Inc.) and a third-ranking mortgage held by Donald Dal Bianco.

The court found that Dal Bianco's mortgage, registered after the first lien arose and securing funds advanced between 2012 and 2015, did not qualify for priority as a "subsequent mortgage" under s.78(6) because the advances were not made "in respect of that mortgage." Furthermore, it was not a "building mortgage" under s.78(2) as it did not involve an intention to secure future financing.

The court emphasized the general priority of lien claimants and the mortgagee's burden to prove exceptions.

Consequently, the lien claimants were granted priority over the third mortgage.

The plaintiffs sought interim relief by way of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against five properties and an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA), specifically the appointment of an inspector to audit financial information.

The court dismissed the request for a CPL, finding that the plaintiffs had no direct interest in the properties, which were corporate assets, and that a CPL would cause disproportionate harm to the defendants.

However, the court granted the request for an inspector, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and established a prima facie case of oppression based on their termination, inconsistent treatment as an employee versus partner, and denial of financial information.

The court determined that an inspector was necessary to clarify commingled funds and determine the plaintiffs' interests, with costs to be borne by the plaintiffs initially.

The applicant and three respondents sought a declaration that the respondent 2180366 Ontario Limited (218) failed to properly exercise a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) contained in a Partnership Agreement, which would permit the sale of shares from Parmantid Inc. to the applicant. 218 contended its exercise of the ROFR was unequivocal despite reserving certain rights.

The court found 218's exercise of the ROFR valid, determining that the reservation of rights was not a renegotiation of the purchase price but merely notice of a potential future entitlement, such as claims for unjust enrichment or set-off related to undisclosed liabilities.

Consequently, the Share Purchase Agreement between the applicant and the vendors became null and void.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to 218 against the applicant and the other respondents.

A bankruptcy trustee applied to commence an equalization claim under the Family Law Act on behalf of a bankrupt husband, where neither spouse had initiated such a claim post-separation.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the right to an equalization of net family property is inchoate and personal to the spouses until exercised.

It does not become "property" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and therefore does not vest in the trustee until a spouse has commenced the claim.

The court also found no basis for a federal paramountcy argument as there was no conflict between the statutes if the right remained unexercised.

The Applicant, Illumina Holdings Inc., sought immediate payment of $254,195 plus interest from the Respondents, BrandAlliance Inc. and A Brand Company Inc., based on a share purchase Letter Agreement.

The Respondents brought a counter-application seeking rectification of the Letter Agreement due to alleged valuation errors and a declaration that Arora, Illumina's owner and former CFO of BrandAlliance, breached his fiduciary duties.

Alternatively, the Respondents sought consolidation, trial, or arbitration.

The court found the Letter Agreement binding and enforceable, rejecting the Respondents' claims for rectification, breach of fiduciary duty, and arguments for a trial or arbitration.

The court also found that the Respondents' claims were largely statute-barred and that A Brand Company Inc. was liable due to a merger with BrandAlliance.

The MGMIC Receiver sought a declaration that a second mortgage on Dovercourt Road was valid and enforceable, allowing distribution of sale proceeds to MGMIC investors.

The non-party A13MG argued the mortgage was invalid due to lack of shareholder consent and alleged fraud by MGMIC's directors.

The court found the mortgage valid, citing evidence of consent through email exchanges and the "Indoor Management Rule" under the OBCA.

The court also held that even if invalid, an equitable mortgage would exist to prevent injustice to innocent investors.

A13MG's fraud action was deemed a nullity due to failure to obtain leave.

The applicant sought directions and the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation following the respondent's non-compliance with a Mareva injunction and previous court orders.

The dispute involved allegations of undue influence, fraudulent codicils, and the unauthorized removal of funds from the deceased's estate.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance and explanations concerning, appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation, and ordered the respondent to repay $120,000 to the estate and pay costs.

The applicants brought a motion to strike a notice of objection filed by the deceased's former common-law spouse regarding the deceased's will and powers of attorney.

The respondent alleged that the deceased lacked capacity and was unduly influenced by the applicants.

The court found no evidence to support the allegations of incapacity or undue influence.

Furthermore, the respondent was bound by comprehensive minutes of settlement executed prior to the deceased's death, in which she released her rights to his estate.

The court struck the notice of objection as frivolous and vexatious and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants.

The applicant sought a declaration that all intellectual property used by the debtor in its business was the property of the debtor and subject to the applicant's security interest.

The debtor's directing mind claimed the trademarks had been assigned to a related company prior to the receivership.

The court found the directing mind lacked credibility, noting the assignments were not disclosed to lenders, were for nominal consideration, and the debtor continued to use and renew the trademarks.

The court declared the trademarks were the property of the debtor and, in the alternative, that the assignments were void as fraudulent conveyances.

A cross-motion by the related company for disgorgement of funds was dismissed.

The applicant, a solar project supplier, sought damages of $1,468,293.40 from the respondent, the Independent Electricity System Operator, alleging ambiguity in the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) contracts regarding the '120% rule'.

The applicant argued it was permitted to use the Nominal Operating Cell Temperature (NOCT) rating rather than the Standard Test Conditions (STC) rating.

The court dismissed the application, finding no ambiguity in the contracts when read as a whole, and held that STC is the universally accepted standard in the solar industry.

The court also found the applicant was contractually precluded from claiming damages.