E. Sherkin

The plaintiffs, purchasers of pre-construction condominium and freehold units, brought motions for certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against the development property after the original developer became insolvent and transferred the property to a new developer.

The purchase agreements contained non-registration clauses prohibiting the registration of CPLs.

The court found that while there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land based on constructive trust, the non-registration clauses and the equitable factors from Dhunna—including the lack of uniqueness of the property, the adequacy of damages, and the prejudice to new innocent purchasers—weighed heavily against granting the CPLs.

The motions were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their action for delay, which arose from a 2011 property flood.

The court applied the four-factor test from Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., assessing the explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found significant unexplained delays by both plaintiffs and their counsel, that the missed deadline was not mere inadvertence, and that the motion to set aside was not promptly brought.

Crucially, the defendants suffered actual prejudice due to the death of a key plaintiff (James Freure) and the dementia of another (Fae Freure), which prevented full discoveries and expert examinations, and resulted in the loss of relevant medical records.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the dismissal, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation.

A separate motion to appoint Catherine Chapman as litigation guardian for Fae Freure was granted.

The plaintiffs successfully obtained Mareva injunctions and certificates of pending litigation against the defendants in a prior decision.

They sought substantial indemnity costs of $306,793.48 or partial indemnity costs of $208,768.58.

The court found that the defendants' lack of transparency required the plaintiffs to incur significant costs to prove their case.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs fixed at $175,000, payable forthwith, leaving open the possibility for the trial judge to increase the award to substantial indemnity if the plaintiffs succeed at trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Certificates of Pending Litigation against the defendants, alleging they perpetrated a Ponzi scheme involving mortgage and securities fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, oppression, and conspiracy, noting that tens of millions of dollars were raised without proper compliance and were unaccounted for.

The court inferred a strong risk of dissipation of assets based on the defendants' conduct, including the listing of a $4 million house and suspicious property transfers.

The motion for the Mareva injunction and CPLs was granted.

During a Commercial List case conference in a complex multi‑party commercial dispute, the court addressed ongoing discovery and production issues among numerous defendants and third parties.

The court directed timelines for outstanding undertakings and warned that unresolved production disputes would require formal motions before a Master.

The court emphasized counsel’s obligation to cooperate in resolving discovery issues and indicated that failure to do so could result in elevated or full indemnity costs.

Additional guidance was provided regarding potential motions for non‑party examinations and production of partnership financial statements.

The court scheduled a further case conference and noted that the matter would not proceed to trial as early as previously anticipated due to outstanding discovery issues.

During a Commercial List case management conference in a complex multi‑party securities and investment dispute, the court issued procedural directions governing ongoing litigation steps.

The court addressed the potential settlement motion involving certain defendants, confirmed the status of examinations for discovery, and ordered timelines for answering undertakings.

The judge provided structured options for handling refusals motions and warned that costs may be assessed per refusal to discourage unnecessary motions.

Additional directions were given regarding the timing of expert reports, a possible future summary judgment motion, and scheduling of the next case management conference.