E. Karp

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for ongoing non-disclosure and failure to comply with court orders.

The respondent, who resides abroad, failed to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his foreign corporate interests, despite a consent order requiring him to do so.

Much of the disclosure provided was in Russian without certified translations, contrary to the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be wilful, tactical, and obstructionist, noting his history of ignoring previous support and property sale orders.

The motion was granted, the respondent's pleadings were struck, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) to secure his claimed right to purchase a 45-acre commercial property.

The parties had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that was amended multiple times to extend due diligence and closing dates.

The defendant purported to terminate the agreement, leading the plaintiff to sue for specific performance.

The court found several triable issues regarding the closing date, deposit requirements, and purchase price, and concluded the plaintiff had a reasonable claim to an interest in the unique property.

The motion for a CPL was granted.

The plaintiff sought costs following the dismissal of motions by the defendants to set aside Mareva and Anton Piller orders and to release frozen funds.

The underlying proceeding involved a large-scale insurance fraud scheme in which insured individuals allegedly submitted claims for therapy services that were never provided, splitting the proceeds with the defendants.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in reprehensible conduct both in their business dealings and throughout the litigation, including failing to comply with court schedules and engaging in unfair procedural tactics.

Applying the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $75,000 in fees plus $11,291.87 in disbursements and taxes.