Daniel Naymark

Six consolidated actions arising from a bitter, multi-year dispute between two competing 'cash for gold' businesses in Toronto.

The feud escalated into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.

The employee sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The court found the hitman liable for malicious prosecution and both the hitman and the competitor liable for abuse of process, awarding the employee $221,775 in damages.

In the corporate actions, the court found the opposing business owner liable for nuisance and intentional interference with economic relations for using 'sandwichboarders' to harass the competitor's business, awarding $200,000.

The competitor was awarded $50,000 for defamation regarding statements made to a newspaper.

The opposing business owner's claims for defamation and misappropriation of personality were dismissed.

Six consolidated actions arising from a bitter, multi-year dispute between two competing 'cash for gold' businesses in Toronto.

The feud escalated into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.

The employee sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The court found the hitman liable for malicious prosecution and both the hitman and the competitor liable for abuse of process, awarding the employee $221,775 in damages.

In the corporate actions, the court found the opposing business owner liable for nuisance and intentional interference with economic relations for using 'sandwichboarders' to harass the competitor's business, awarding $200,000.

The competitor was awarded $50,000 for defamation regarding statements made to a newspaper.

The opposing business owner's claims for defamation and misappropriation of personality were dismissed.

The moving party defendants in a proposed class proceeding related to the 'Freedom Convoy' sought access to $200,000 of frozen escrow funds to retain counsel.

The funds were originally frozen by a Mareva injunction and a criminal restraint order, and were raised through crowdfunding platforms to support convoy participants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the funds were not the personal assets of the defendants and that the moving parties failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure to demonstrate impecuniosity or an inability to defend the action without access to the frozen funds.

The plaintiffs brought a pleading amendment motion in a class proceeding.

Counsel requested an adjournment because the Public Inquiry was ongoing, and certain defendants indicated a desire to bring a motion to strike portions of the claim.

The court ordered the motion adjourned to January 2023, to be heard alongside any motion to strike, and set a timetable for the exchange of materials.

During an ongoing civil trial, the court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of an affidavit sworn by a non-party in a separate, sealed family proceeding.

The affidavit had come into the possession of one of the defendants.

The objecting parties argued the affidavit was protected by solicitor-client privilege and was obtained unlawfully.

The court held that the sworn affidavit filed in court was not a privileged communication and that the sealing order did not reinstate privilege.

The court ruled the affidavit admissible for impeachment purposes as a prior inconsistent statement.

The Gerstel parties brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled five-week trial after the Berkovits parties indicated they intended to call Hosseini, a defaulting party who had previously failed to attend discoveries, as a witness.

The moving parties argued they would be prejudiced if forced to proceed without examining Hosseini.

The court dismissed the adjournment request to avoid further delay, but ordered that Hosseini must submit to a two-day examination for discovery prior to trial, failing which he would be barred from testifying.

The applicants, judgment creditors of the respondents for over $26 million USD arising from a fraudulent lending scheme, moved to discontinue the payment of living expenses and legal fees to the respondents and their related trusts from the receivership estate.

The trusts brought a cross-motion to strike the Receiver's Eleventh Report, arguing the Receiver exceeded its mandate by tracing funds and making observations about badges of a sham trust.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the Receiver acted within its court-ordered investigatory powers and did not usurp the court's role.

The court granted the applicants' motion to terminate funding, holding that the respondents had exhausted their appeals, were now judgment debtors, and failed to meet the test for funding from frozen assets, as they had not provided full disclosure and the funds belonged to their creditors.

The plaintiff, an 81-year-old widow, brought a motion to continue and expand a Mareva injunction and obtain further Norwich orders against her deceased husband's former bookkeeper, who allegedly misappropriated funds.

The court continued the existing Mareva injunction freezing $185,000 related to the sale of a restaurant property, finding a strong prima facie case.

However, the court dismissed the request to expand the injunction to cover the sale of a farm property due to conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the request for further Norwich orders, noting the litigation was no longer at the pre-action stage, and ruled that much of the plaintiff's evidence, provided via a law clerk's affidavit, was inadmissible hearsay.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for fraud, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract arising from a fraudulent investment scheme.

The court found the defendants liable on a joint and several basis, as the uncontested evidence established that the defendants accepted funds for investment but did not invest them as promised, instead providing forged financial statements.

The court awarded damages based on the net principal invested plus compound interest, general damages for investigation costs, and punitive damages.

A receiver was appointed over a fraudulent investment scheme where the deposits of 24 investors were commingled.

The receiver sought directions on how to distribute the remaining funds, which had a significant shortfall.

One group of investors argued for a pro rata distribution based on original contributions, while another argued for the Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule (LIBR).

The court held that LIBR is the general rule for resolving competing claims to commingled funds unless it is unworkable.

Finding that the receiver could practically calculate the LIBR distributions, the court ordered the funds to be distributed according to LIBR.