Evangelista

The plaintiffs, shareholders in Domenic Cosentino and Co. Limited (DCCL), brought a motion seeking an injunction to halt the sale of the company's sole asset, the Wolfedale Road property, an interim preservation order, or a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), alleging oppressive conduct by the controlling shareholders, Mary and Tony Cosentino.

The plaintiffs claimed Mary and Tony had mismanaged company finances, depleted property equity through undisclosed mortgages, and acted without transparency regarding the property sale and their personal financial benefits.

The court found that Mary and Tony's actions were oppressive, establishing a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm if the sale proceeded without safeguards.

However, the court denied the injunction, preservation order, and CPL, finding that the balance of convenience favored allowing the sale to proceed due to the company's dire financial state and mortgage default.

Instead, the court ordered that the net proceeds of the sale be paid into court, and Tony's disputed commission be held pending trial.

This is a costs ruling following the dismissal of recusal motions brought by the Moving Parties (Sam Cosentino, Concetta Cosentino, and Cesare Cosentino).

The court rejected the Moving Parties' request to refer costs to an assessment officer, affirming that judges typically fix costs to avoid delay.

It found that the Moving Parties should have reasonably anticipated the responding defendants' participation and associated legal costs.

While the recusal motion was ill-conceived and involved a substantial record, the court determined that the Moving Parties' conduct was not egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court adjusted some cost claims for duplication of counsel and excluded time spent on non-party witnesses, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants.

The moving parties (Sam, Concetta, and Cesare Cosentino) sought the recusal of the case management judge, Daley RSJ, in seven related high-conflict family litigation actions, alleging bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

They also sought a transfer of the actions from Brampton to Toronto.

The court dismissed both the recusal motions and the transfer request, finding no cogent evidence to overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The judge emphasized the higher threshold for recusal in a case management context, where close interaction and familiarity with the case are expected.