Hailey Bruckner

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants Elko and its principal for knowing receipt and knowing assistance, alleging they participated in a scheme to divert business from a family company to avoid a prior judgment.

Elko brought a motion to stay the action because the plaintiffs failed to disclose settlement agreements with co-defendants that changed the adversarial landscape.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion and granted summary judgment in favour of Elko, finding no evidence that Elko had actual or constructive knowledge of the breach of fiduciary duty.

In the alternative, the court held it would have permanently stayed the action due to the plaintiffs' failure to immediately disclose the settlement agreements, which prejudiced Elko.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for a Mareva injunction in a complex commercial fraud action, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to one group of defendants, finding that while a strong prima facie case of fraud was established against them, the injunction was denied on other grounds.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to two other groups of defendants against whom the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud.

The court also addressed costs related to advance funding applications under the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The applicants, former officers of the respondent corporation, brought applications for advance funding of their legal fees to defend an action alleging complex commercial fraud.

The applications were brought pursuant to the corporation's Unanimous Shareholders Agreement and section 124 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test to determine if advance funding should be denied due to bad faith.

The court dismissed the application of the former CEO, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud had been established against him in a related Mareva injunction motion.

The court granted the application of the former COO, as the evidence did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against him.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction (asset freezing order) against several defendants, alleging a complex commercial fraud involving misappropriated funds, illicit acquisition fees, and kickbacks across multiple real estate development projects.

While the court found a strong prima facie case of fraud against the defendant Lee regarding his receipt of concealed acquisition fees, it found no such case against the other responding defendants.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the motion against all defendants because the plaintiffs failed to establish a real risk of asset dissipation, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the extraordinary remedy.