Evan Moore

The plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction was previously dismissed.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $47,884.76.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded, or alternatively, that costs should be reserved to the trial judge or fixed at $20,000.

The court found no extraordinary circumstances to reserve costs to the trial judge and held that the defendants were entitled to their costs payable forthwith.

After reducing the amount claimed for cross-examinations due to potential duplication of work among three lawyers, the court fixed the defendants' partial indemnity costs at $40,000 inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer regarding financial claims due to his failure to comply with multiple court orders, including support and disclosure orders.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion, supported by the applicant but opposed by the respondent wife from his concurrent marriage, seeking the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property to satisfy his support arrears and future obligations.

The court granted the release of funds, finding it would not prejudice the respondent wife's civil claims for misappropriation.

The court declined to strike the husband's Answer at this time, instead ordering him to provide the outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which the applicant could renew her motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a condominium property.

The plaintiff had assigned her agreement of purchase and sale to the first defendant, who later transferred his interest to his parents (the co-defendants) without paying the plaintiff the balance owed under the assignment agreement.

The court found no triable issue for a resulting or constructive trust.

Applying the Grefford test for a CPL in a fraudulent conveyance action, the court found a high probability of success and a triable issue regarding intent to defeat creditors, but ultimately dismissed the motion because the balance of convenience weighed against granting the CPL.