Fabian Otto

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory Mareva injunction against the defendants to freeze their assets pending trial.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced him to invest approximately $350,000 in what was represented as a legitimate investment scheme.

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva injunction against one defendant based on a strong prima facie case of civil fraud, evidence of asset dissipation, and irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed as against the other defendants due to insufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case against them.

The plaintiff, Shamsul Alam MD, moved for default judgment against the defendant, Azam Khan a.k.a.

MD Azam Khan, regarding alleged loans for construction at eight properties.

The defendant sought to set aside the noting in default.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to grant default judgment and noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s affidavits and the nature of the parties’ relationship.

Despite the defendant’s significant delay and lack of explanation, the court set aside the noting in default to allow the matter to proceed on the merits, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the complexity of the issues.

The plaintiff, Slave Paunovski, brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging fraud and dissipation of assets.

The court granted the injunction against Danny and Mara Risteski, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and knowing receipt, but dismissed the motion against Donco Investments Ltd. due to insufficient evidence.

The decision reviews the procedural history, the legal test for Mareva injunctions, and the adequacy of disclosure and evidence provided.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to add a new defendant and, controversially, to add a claim of deceit against CBRE Limited, the vendor's agent.

The court granted the uncontested amendments but dismissed the proposed deceit claim against CBRE.

The court found the deceit claim was not properly pleaded, lacking the full particulars required by Rule 25.06(8) for allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.

The allegations were deemed insufficient to establish deceit without specific details of false representations, knowledge, intent, reliance, and resulting loss.

The court emphasized the seriousness of a deceit allegation, especially against a realtor, and the need for strict pleading standards.

Costs were awarded to CBRE Limited.

This appeal concerned whether the appellants (vendors) were entitled to terminate an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a vacant lot under paragraph 10 (the "annulment clause") of the OREA standard form APS due to writs of execution against title.

The motion judge found the appellants breached the contract by not exercising the annulment power reasonably and ordered specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that a vendor must make genuine efforts to satisfy title requisitions and cannot rely on the annulment clause if encumbrances, such as writs of execution, could be cleared from the sale proceeds.

The plaintiff, a commercial tenant, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant landlord from terminating its tenancy and repossessing the premises due to alleged discrepancies in square footage and other complaints.

The plaintiff was in significant rent arrears, having unilaterally abated rent based on its claims.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, emphasizing the tenant's obligation to pay rent in full under a commercial lease, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a vacant residential lot.

The defendant vendors had refused to close the transaction, claiming they were unable to remove outstanding writs of execution from title and treating the agreement as terminated.

The court found that the defendants failed to act in good faith to clear the title, as they could have paid the executions from the sale proceeds or paid the funds into court.

The court also found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given its location and affordability.

The plaintiffs' motion for specific performance was granted and the defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the defendants, who acted as her paralegal consultants following two motor vehicle accidents in 2001.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to preserve the limitation periods for her accident benefits and tort claims.

The court found that the defendants were retained for the first accident but not the second.

Although the defendants breached the standard of care by failing to file a statement of claim and inform the plaintiff of limitation issues for the first accident, the court dismissed the action.

The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as she knew or ought to have known of the potential claim more than two years before commencing the action.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's injuries from the first accident did not meet the permanent serious impairment threshold under the Insurance Act.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession over a portion of the respondent's land, as well as an order to remove a fence and trees.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had previously brought a similar claim in 2017, which was dismissed.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that the issue of adverse possession over the subject lands had already been determined in the prior action, where it was established that the previous owners had no intention to exclude the true owners.

The application was dismissed on the basis of res judicata.

These supplementary reasons address the costs arising from two motions where Neda Afshar and Arman Sabet successfully sought to remove Brian Sherman as lawyer of record for Mehdi Moradi, and Ms. Afshar also obtained leave to amend her statement of claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Ms. Afshar ($24,000.00) and Mr. Sabet ($6,000.00), payable by Mr. Moradi.

The court declined to award elevated costs or costs against Mr. Sherman personally, finding no reprehensible conduct by Mr. Moradi or Mr. Sherman in opposing the motions.

Neda Afshar and Arman Sabet brought motions to remove Brian Sherman as lawyer of record for Mehdi Moradi due to conflict of interest and breach of duty of loyalty, stemming from a joint retainer in a real estate action.

Ms. Afshar also sought leave to amend her statement of claim and be added as a defendant.

Mr. Sabet sought production of his file.

The court found that Mr. Sherman had received confidential information and was acting against former clients in the same matter, violating the duty of loyalty.

The motions to remove counsel and grant leave to amend the statement of claim were granted.

The request for file production was dismissed as the material had largely been produced.