Dana Carson

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and ancillary relief, alleging a significant fraud where over $17,000,000 in investor funds were misappropriated from a litigation financing business and diverted to companies controlled by the Defendants to purchase real estate and other assets, resembling a Ponzi scheme.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of asset dissipation (evidenced by attempts to sell properties and the defendants' lack of forthrightness), and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs.

The court also ordered the net proceeds from the sale of a specific property to be held in trust and granted substituted service for two defendants.

The third party, Gregory Cook, sought costs of a dismissed motion for interim costs brought by the defendant David Lawrence Denomme, as trustee of the estate of Daniel Thomas Denomme.

The court reviewed the third party's costs outline, found the time expended and partial indemnity hourly rates reasonable, and fixed costs to be paid by the estate trustee to the third party.

The defendants unsuccessfully moved to set aside ex parte orders granting the plaintiffs leave to register certificates of pending litigation and appointing a monitor.

The plaintiffs sought costs of the motion payable forthwith, while the defendants argued costs should be in the cause due to unproven allegations of civil fraud.

The court ordered the defendants to pay $5,000 forthwith for the portion of the motion relating to the certificates of pending litigation.

However, the court held that the $35,000 in costs for the portion relating to the monitor should be payable to the plaintiffs only if they are ultimately successful in the litigation.

Zeifmans LLP, a judgment creditor of Mitec Technologies Inc., brought an application seeking an oppression remedy against Mitec and its directors (Schwartz, Mandel, Rudin) and leave to commence a derivative action.

The court granted Zeifmans standing as a complainant for the oppression remedy, finding that Mitec's payment to shareholders before settling Zeifmans' invoice, despite a prior agreement and sufficient funds, was unfairly prejudicial and disregarded Zeifmans' reasonable expectations.

The court imposed personal liability on the directors due to their bad faith.

However, the court denied leave for the derivative action, finding it was not in the best interests of the corporation given its limited financial resources and lack of stakeholder support.

The plaintiff, a Texas-based pension fund, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, directors of a Cayman Islands investment fund, seeking a refund of a $1 million USD investment.

The investment was earmarked for Facebook shares that were never acquired, triggering a refund clause in the Subscription Agreement.

The defendants did not contest the facts but argued that Ontario was not the proper jurisdiction due to an exclusive forum selection clause in the Subscription Agreement designating the Cayman Islands.

The plaintiff argued the claim was for breach of fiduciary duty, not contract, and against individuals served in Ontario.

The court upheld the forum selection clause, finding it broad enough to cover the claim, regardless of how it was framed.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the action was stayed, with a caveat that the stay could be lifted if Cayman Islands courts declined jurisdiction.

Costs were not awarded due to the plaintiff representing pensioners who had already suffered losses.

An estates dispute arose over ownership of a residential property transferred by elderly parents to a daughter as a joint tenant without consideration.

The applicants alleged the transfer was invalid due to non est factum, undue influence, or a resulting trust, and alternatively argued that a later transfer severed the joint tenancy.

The court found the parents understood the nature and consequences of the transaction and intended to make a complete inter vivos gift, thereby rebutting the presumption of resulting trust under Pecore.

The court also held the later transfer into the daughter’s sole legal title accompanied by a declaration of trust did not sever the joint tenancy.

The property was ordered sold with net proceeds divided equally between the surviving parent and the daughter, and the daughter’s claim for reimbursement for renovations was dismissed for lack of proof.