David Marcovitch

The defendants moved to amend their statement of defence and for an order requiring the plaintiff to post further security for costs.

The plaintiff, who claimed to be impecunious, had previously been ordered to post a modest amount of security.

The defendants discovered that the plaintiff had entered into an assignment agreement with a paralegal corporation to fund the litigation in exchange for 15% of any recovery.

The court allowed the amendments to the statement of defence.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to disclose the funding agreement on the initial motion, breaching the duty of candour required when pleading impecuniosity.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the plaintiff to post further security for costs in staged amounts.

The defendant moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered against his matrimonial home.

The plaintiff bank agreed the certificate should be removed after discovering the alleged fraudulent conveyance had already been reversed, but sought a charging order against the defendant’s interest in the property as a term of discharge.

The court found the bank had a strong prima facie claim under a personal guarantee for corporate debt and that circumstances surrounding property transfers created a real risk the defendant might render himself judgment‑proof.

The court also rejected allegations that the bank had obtained the original certificate through material misrepresentation on the without‑notice motion.

The certificate of pending litigation was discharged but replaced with a limited form of security akin to a Mareva injunction.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought weekly income benefits.

He was the president and controlling shareholder of an electrical contracting business.

The Insurer argued the Applicant should be treated as self-employed, attributing the company's income and expenses directly to him, which would reduce his benefits.

The arbitrator rejected the Insurer's approach, finding that the Applicant's pre-accident salary of $600 per week was a real and reasonable salary within the context of the company's history.

The arbitrator ordered the Insurer to pay the maximum weekly income benefit of $600, without deducting business expenses or post-accident corporate income, plus interest and arbitration expenses.