Craig Thomas Aitken

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for breaching a Mareva order.

The defendant had drawn approximately $950,000 from lines of credit secured against her properties, contrary to the order.

The defendant admitted to the breach and claimed she had been defrauded in a cryptocurrency investment scheme.

The court found the defendant in contempt but imposed a fine of $7,500 rather than imprisonment, considering the defendant's personal circumstances, remorse, and the fact that the contemptuous conduct was complete.

Costs were fixed at $50,000.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.

The moving creditors, Antoine Dwyane Small and Whayne Small, brought a motion under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay of proceedings.

They sought to continue their civil fraud action against the bankrupt, Richard Nicholson, in which they claimed damages of approximately $500,000 for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The bankrupt opposed the motion, while the trustee did not oppose it.

The court granted the motion, lifting the stay to allow the fraud action to proceed, finding that the creditors would be materially prejudiced by a continued stay and that it was equitable to do so.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion in a commercial lease dispute, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The case involved allegations of breach of lease, wrongful termination, and repudiation, with significant evidentiary and credibility concerns due to the passing of a key witness.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient for summary judgment and awarded costs to the defendants.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order setting aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction regarding a $37 million real estate transaction.

The moving party requested a stay of the order to keep the CPL in place pending the leave motion.

To avoid the time and expense of a contested stay motion, the court used its case management powers to expedite the motion for leave to appeal and granted an interim stay, conditional upon the moving party providing a $5 million undertaking in damages.

The Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their claim to add new causes of action and parties, including knowing assistance, knowing receipt, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and piercing the corporate veil, and to particularize allegations against a non-party and a discontinued defendant.

The GBRSAS Defendants opposed, arguing new causes of action were statute-barred and prejudice would result.

The court granted leave for most proposed amendments, finding they were alternative relief or different legal conclusions based on existing facts, or arose from the core factual matrix.

However, leave was denied for breach of contract claims against individual defendants, as these were new causes of action based on unpleaded facts and were statute-barred.

Leave was also denied to withdraw admissions regarding misrepresentations made by a settling defendant due to lack of reasonable explanation.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of McSweeney J. dated May 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order against the defendants, alleging a fraudulent investment scheme.

The defendants, including Richard Nicholson and his company NWR Financial Group, allegedly induced the plaintiffs to invest USD $670,000 in a non-existent hedge fund, Legacy Investors Group Inc., promising high returns.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, evidence of asset dissipation by Nicholson (e.g., luxury purchases, sale of home), and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction to preserve assets.

The court also granted the Norwich order, finding that the five factors for disclosure from non-party financial institutions were met, as they were the only practical source of information regarding the flow of funds.