Daniel Milton

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no bill of costs was provided, no costs were ordered.

The applicant, husband of the deceased, sought an order compelling the respondents to answer refusals and provide better answers to undertakings given during cross-examinations in an estate application challenging a will and various transfers.

The applicant narrowed his motion to focus on communications-related refusals.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the broad, unlimited requests for all communications were not relevant and overly broad.

Where more limited requests had been made, the respondents had already provided substantive answers or produced documents where found.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment on a collateral mortgage registered on the defendants' home.

The defendants counterclaimed alleging undue influence and unconscionability.

The court dismissed the lender's motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the interplay between undue influence, unconscionability, and independent legal advice.

The court also dismissed the motion of the defendants' son's lawyer, finding genuine issues regarding a conversation with the defendant.

However, the court granted summary judgment in favour of a lawyer friend of the son who had minimal involvement, finding no basis for liability.

This endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the granting of default judgment and summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs.

The court reviews a revised Costs Outline and orders specific costs to be paid by each Defendant, with payment due within 30 days of April 29, 2025.

The plaintiffs, Albert Carbone and Cathy Horvath, sought default and summary judgment against several defendants for misappropriating their life savings through a fraudulent investment scheme involving a non-existent cannabis business.

The court granted default judgment against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and summary judgment against Rosanna Boccia for fraud, conversion, and oppression.

Punitive damages were awarded against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. The court found the conduct to be brazen, intentional, and a marked departure from ordinary standards of behaviour, and held the defendants jointly and severally liable for the losses.

The Plaintiffs, FactR Limited and Constructr Limited, factoring companies, brought a motion for summary judgment against R.R.I.C.H. Construction & Management Inc., 85242 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. (the "Contract Defendants"), and Michael Mullett (the "Guarantor") for repayment of loans under invoice factoring agreements.

They also sought judgment against Roman Artemovych for conversion of a cheque.

The Contract Defendants, Guarantor, and Mr. Artemovych failed to file affidavits, attend examinations, or appoint new counsel after their previous lawyer was removed, leading to their Statements of Defence being struck.

The court granted summary judgment as requested, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the claims for unpaid loans and the tort of conversion.

The plaintiff, a condominium resident, sought statutory and tort-based injunctive and declaratory relief against the defendant, an underground venue operating in his building.

The plaintiff alleged the venue was operating as an unlicensed nightclub, causing severe noise and vibrations constituting a nuisance.

The court found that the defendant was indeed operating as an "entertainment establishment/nightclub" without the proper license, based on its functional activities (e.g., providing dance facilities, minimal seating, ancillary food sales) despite being licensed as an "eating or drinking establishment." The court granted a declaration to this effect and issued both a statutory injunction requiring the defendant to cease operations in contravention of its licensing status, and an interim/interlocutory injunction based in tort, prohibiting the emission of sound audible beyond the lot limit between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.

This decision addresses two related appeals.

In the main appeal (C70874), Physicians’ Dialysis Center Inc. (PDC), and Drs.

George Wu and Gordon Wong appealed a trial judgment that found them unjustly enriched at the expense of Drs.

Perkins and Boll, and liable for general and punitive damages due to abuse of trust and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellants argued errors in the interpretation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning compensation for clinic space and services, and that the claims were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on unjust enrichment, contract interpretation (clarifying payments were for overhead, not extra billing), and the application of the limitations period.

In the second appeal (COA-22-CV-0392), Dr. Donald Kim appealed the denial of his share in interpleaded funds, and this appeal was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich Order against David Shpilt, who was added as a defendant in an ongoing fraud action.

The plaintiffs had invested significant funds in a cannabis business, Sustainable Growth Strategic Capital Corp., which they alleged was fraudulent.

Shpilt was found to have drafted a forged contract used to induce investment and received over $110,000 of the plaintiffs' funds.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation against Shpilt, a serious risk of asset dissipation, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the Mareva injunction.

For the Norwich Order, the court determined there was a bona fide claim, a connection between financial institutions and the fraud, and that the order was the only practical source of information to trace funds.

Both the Mareva injunction and Norwich Order were granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to add David Shpilt and Pamela Atkinson as defendants, amend their statement of claim, register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the Homewood Property, and validate service on Mr. Shpilt.

The court granted the motion with respect to adding Mr. Shpilt as a defendant, allowing the amendment of the statement of claim to include him, and validating service on him.

The balance of the motion, concerning Ms. Atkinson and the CPL, was adjourned due to insufficient service on Ms. Atkinson.

An interim order was issued to prevent the transfer or sale of the Homewood Property pending the adjourned hearing.