D. Marr

The court heard three service and pleadings-related motions in a complex fraud action.

The defendant Mark Gross successfully moved to set aside a prior ex parte order validating service on him, arguing the claims against him were intertwined with insolvent corporate defendants and should be addressed in commercial list insolvency proceedings.

Three numbered company defendants successfully moved to set aside their noting in default, as they had not been given notice of the default proceedings while a motion to validate service on them was pending.

The plaintiffs' motion to validate service was granted for the numbered companies and one individual defendant who had actual notice, but dismissed regarding other defendants due to insufficient evidence of notice or efforts to serve.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of documents, answers to refused questions, and re-attendance for further examinations of several defendants and a non-party witness following cross-examinations on an affidavit and examinations under Rule 39.03.

The examinations were conducted in the context of a pending motion by the defendant Purchaser Corporations to discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The court granted partial relief, ordering the production of share purchase agreements and answers to specific questions regarding corporate control and share transfers, finding them relevant to the bona fides of the property transactions.

The court dismissed the requests for voluminous due diligence documents as overbroad and declined to order re-attendance for further examinations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the registration and enforcement in Ontario of a final judgment granted by a Florida court.

The underlying action involved a real estate investment in Florida, which the parties settled.

The defendants defaulted on the settlement agreement, leading to the Florida judgment.

The defendants did not defend the Ontario action.

The court found that the Florida court properly assumed jurisdiction and that the judgment was not contrary to natural justice or public policy.

The motion was granted, and the foreign judgment was recognized and enforced.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a charge registered on a property was void as a fraudulent conveyance.

At a case conference, the respondents argued the matter should proceed as a trial of an issue due to factual disputes and credibility issues.

The court directed that the matter proceed by way of application, noting that the presiding judge could still order a trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.