Geoffrey Janoscik

The Plaintiff sought costs incurred for preparing a summary judgment motion, which became unnecessary after the Defendant, initially self-represented, retained counsel and filed an Amended Statement of Defense.

The Plaintiff requested costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court, exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, awarded the Plaintiff a reduced amount of $1,000 in costs thrown away, considering the Defendant's initial lack of legal representation and the potential future utility of the Plaintiff's motion preparation.

Ms. Chang moved to set aside a Mareva injunction previously granted against her, alleging that the plaintiff, Maxjoyce Express Inc., failed to provide full, fair, and frank disclosure of material facts during the ex parte application for the injunction.

The court found that Maxjoyce's representative, Mr. Deng, intentionally omitted and misrepresented several material facts, including his own unauthorized withdrawals of funds, Ms. Chang's directorship, and her explicit refusal to consent to fund transfers.

The court concluded that these were not mere 'sloppy' errors but material facts that should have been disclosed.

Consequently, the Mareva injunction was set aside.

The plaintiff, Gamble & Rogers Limited, sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property, alleging a fraudulent conveyance by one of the defendants, Dany Carvalho, to his wife, Rosa Carvalho.

The plaintiff claimed Dany had promised a collateral mortgage on the property to secure a debt owed by Horizon Meat Packers Inc., a company he co-owned, and then fraudulently transferred his interest in the property for no consideration to defeat creditors.

The defendants argued there was no interest in land to support a CPL and that the transfer was for good consideration based on an earlier share transfer.

The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance and that an interest in land was in question, granting leave to register the CPL.

The applicant, a Liberal candidate in the 2014 Ontario provincial election for the electoral district of Thornhill, sought a recount of ballots pursuant to Section 71 of the Election Act.

On election night, unofficial results showed the applicant winning by 85 votes.

However, the official tabulation conducted the following day showed the respondent, a Progressive Conservative candidate, winning by the same 85-vote margin.

The applicant alleged improper rejection of ballots and improper tabulation by the returning officer.

The court ordered a recount, finding that the discrepancy between the unofficial and official tallies, combined with the extremely narrow margin of victory and concerns about voter confidence in the democratic process, established a prima facie case for relief under Section 71(1)(b) of the Election Act.

A non‑party developer sought a protective order restricting disclosure of its financial and project financing documents produced in litigation concerning a municipal RFP process.

The moving party argued the information was confidential and that disclosure to a competitor should be limited to counsel and experts and sealed from the public record.

Applying the test in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court held the evidence did not establish a real and substantial risk of harm or a sufficiently important commercial interest.

The court emphasized the open court principle and the public interest in transparency where allegations of political influence and misconduct in a municipal procurement process were raised.

The motion for a protective and sealing order was dismissed, though the court ordered reciprocal disclosure of equivalent financial documents relating to the plaintiff’s proposal.