Geoff Keeble

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of Shazia Khan due to her persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding discovery, document production, and accounting.

The motion also sought to schedule default judgment against Shazia Khan and summary judgment against Haroon Khan, and for production of documents from non-parties National Bank of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia.

The court denied an adjournment requested by the defendants based on an alleged settlement, prioritizing timely access to justice given the history of non-compliance.

The court granted the motion to strike Shazia Khan's statement of defence, finding her conduct a blatant disregard for court rules and orders, warranting this severe remedy.

The non-party production orders were also granted.

The scheduling of the judgment motions and a potential motion to enforce the alleged settlement was deferred to a case conference.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent ex parte motion for an Anton Piller Order and related injunctive relief against a former independent contractor.

The contractor allegedly manipulated invoices, and upon being suspended, launched a cyber attack that shut down the plaintiffs' systems, deleted sensitive data, and caused significant financial damage.

The contractor also allegedly engaged in a campaign of defamation, doxing, and death threats against the plaintiffs' personnel.

The court found the evidence justified the rare remedy of an Anton Piller Order without notice to prevent the destruction of evidence.

The appellants, estate trustees of Dr. Zachariadis, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim to recover a $700,000 payment made by the deceased to his romantic partner, Ms. Giannopoulos, alleging breach of trust, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The motion judge found the payment was a valid gift and the action was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in denying an adjournment for further examinations, confirming the payment was a gift despite alleged suspicious circumstances, and agreeing that the action was statute-barred under the Trustee Act's strict limitation period, with the doctrine of fraudulent concealment not applying.

The appeal regarding costs was also dismissed, upholding the substantial indemnity award against the estate and trustees personally.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim on a motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale against both the estate and the estate trustees personally.

The court found that the plaintiffs pursued unsupported fraud allegations and engaged in unnecessarily aggressive and disproportionate conduct throughout the litigation.

Costs were fixed at $199,602.46 on a substantial indemnity scale, payable by both the estate and the trustees personally.

The court also ordered a conference call to address allegations that one of the trustees fraudulently conveyed her home to avoid the costs order.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action seeking to recover a $700,000 transfer made by the deceased to the defendant prior to his death.

The plaintiffs, who were the deceased's estranged daughters and estate trustees, argued the transfer was suspicious and sought an adjournment to examine non-party witnesses.

The court denied the adjournment, finding a lack of diligence.

The court granted summary judgment, holding that the action was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in the Trustee Act and that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply.

In the alternative, the court found the defendant had met the burden of proving the transfer was a valid inter vivos gift.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants for fraud.

The defendant Ablacksingh was found in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders related to providing an accounting and attending examinations in aid of execution.

This decision addresses the sentencing for contempt, punitive damages, and costs.

The court imposed a two-month conditional sentence on Ablacksingh, ordered him to take down misleading websites and photographs, and awarded $20,000 in punitive damages and $40,000 in costs to the plaintiff.