Daniel Litsos

The court considered whether the plaintiff's claim for repayment of loans to the defendant was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff and defendant were long-time friends, and the plaintiff loaned the defendant significant sums over several years.

The defendant did not dispute the loans or the amounts but argued the claim was out of time.

The court found the loans were not demand loans, and the limitation period was not suspended by part payments or acknowledgments made after the period expired.

The court concluded the claim was statute-barred and dismissed the action, despite finding the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits.

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.

This costs endorsement follows summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Samuel Stern, in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court awards substantial indemnity costs of $62,817.10 to the plaintiff, finding the defendant’s conduct intentionally delayed the proceedings and wasted time and expense.

The court reviews the contractual entitlement to costs, the relevant statutory and case law principles, and the proportionality of the costs award.

The plaintiff, Samuel Stern, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Mehran Moeinifar, for an unpaid $1,000,000 loan secured by a mortgage and a personal guarantee.

The court granted summary judgment in the amount of $1,445,673.52 (including interest), finding no genuine issue for trial.

The defendant’s arguments regarding lack of Ontario jurisdiction and forum non conveniens were rejected, as the defendant had attorned to Ontario’s jurisdiction and the relevant contracts were made in Ontario.

The court found the guarantee enforceable and the defendant liable.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion seeking a declaration that the debtor had no automatic right of appeal from an Approval and Vesting Order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and an order denying leave to appeal.

The debtor argued it had an automatic right of appeal under s. 193(a) or (c) of the BIA, or alternatively sought leave under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal held that the debtor had no automatic right of appeal, as the order did not affect future rights or result in a direct loss exceeding $10,000.

The Court also denied leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit, did not raise an issue of general importance, and would unduly hinder the insolvency proceedings.

The plaintiff, Maurizio Sprovieri, sought summary judgment for repayment of loans totaling $314,278.52, including interest, made to the defendant, James Christopher Demetriou.

The defendant did not dispute the existence or amount of the loans but argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended the claim was not discoverable until after June 8, 2019, due to the defendant’s representations that repayment depended on the outcome of a separate lawsuit.

The court found a conflict in the evidence regarding these representations and directed the issue to proceed to a mini trial.

The Trustee in bankruptcy applied under s. 96(1)(b)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for a declaration that the bankrupt's 2018 transfer of his interest in a Florida property to his wife was a transfer at undervalue and void.

The court found that the transfer met the preconditions for a transfer at undervalue, including being to a non-arm's length party within five years of bankruptcy, and that the bankrupt intended to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors, as evidenced by "badges of fraud" such as existing lawsuits and inadequate consideration.

The court declared the transfer of the bankrupt's half interest in the property void and ordered the wife to pay half of the net proceeds from her subsequent sale of the property to the Trustee.

The Trustee in bankruptcy, msi Spergel Inc., brought a motion seeking various reliefs against the bankrupt, Jose Lava Suguitan, and his spouse, Sarah Morrison, as well as financial institutions and a bookkeeper.

The court granted orders compelling Mr. Suguitan to provide information and documentation regarding his personal affairs, and Ms. Morrison to answer undertakings from her examination.

The court also ordered banks and Ayesha Meher to provide Mr. Suguitan's personal banking and tax information.

However, the court dismissed the Trustee's request for corporate banking and accounting information, citing the principle of corporate separateness and insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil.

The motion for a declaration that the transfer of a Florida property was at undervalue, a preference, or a fraudulent conveyance was adjourned to a Commercial List judge due to the registrar's lack of jurisdiction for such declaratory relief.

The appellant corporation appealed an Associate Justice's decision dismissing its motion under Rule 15.01(2) to be represented by a non-lawyer employee.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review.

The court upheld the Associate Justice's application of the Astrochrome test, finding no error in the determination that the proposed representative was not duly authorized by the board of directors and that it would be unfair to allow the representation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of over $1.3 million obtained by the plaintiff.

The defendant argued he was not served with the statement of claim and had an arguable defence regarding the nature of the funds advanced.

The court found the defendant had an arguable defence and noted significant errors and misleading information in the plaintiff's default judgment motion record, including improper currency conversion and unilaterally imposed interest rates.

The motion was granted, the default judgment was set aside, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant, the largest creditor of a bankrupt sports medicine clinic, brought an application under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The applicant alleged that the individual respondents flipped the bankrupt's assets and goodwill to a new corporation without paying fair market value, constituting a fraudulent conveyance or transfer at undervalue.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that any assets with realizable value were conveyed to the new corporation prior to bankruptcy, nor any evidence of the business's going concern value.

The plaintiffs, a builder and his wife, claimed a construction lien and damages for breach of contract and delay against the defendant homeowners, who counterclaimed for deficiencies and uncompleted work.

The court found the construction contract was a fixed-price agreement, not cost-plus, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to extras due to lack of written authorization as required by the contract.

The court allowed some of the defendants' back-charges for deficiencies and uncompleted work against a holdback.

It also found both parties equally responsible for project delays, awarding the plaintiffs a portion of their claimed delay damages.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs were awarded a net amount significantly less than their initial claim.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the respondent's counsel to attend an examination under Rule 39.03 and to remove the counsel and his firm as lawyers of record.

The applicants sought to examine the counsel regarding a legal opinion he provided on the validity of proxies submitted during a condominium board election.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the legal opinion lacked the 'high materiality and necessity' required to compel opposing counsel to testify.

Consequently, as counsel would not be a witness, there was no conflict of interest warranting removal from the record.