Harvey Dorsey

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against its former president and sole director, alleging he engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving excessive or non-existent expenses and forged signatures.

The plaintiff relied heavily on a forensic accountant's report, but failed to provide direct evidence from individuals with knowledge of the facts underlying the accountant's assumptions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's evidentiary record insufficient to establish that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the alleged misrepresentations and fraud.

The plaintiffs had a pending motion to validate service of their statement of claim on one defendant and to extend the time for service on another.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred and failed to plead valid causes of action, and brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to examine the plaintiffs prior to the hearing.

The Master granted the motion in part, permitting the defendants to examine the plaintiffs on issues relevant to the limitation period defence, but refusing examination on the factual basis of the pleaded causes of action, as the latter is a pleadings test rather than an evidentiary one.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion for summary judgment.

The successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the motion was unreasonable.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not justify such an award.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $43,777.33.

The plaintiff shareholder brought a motion in a dispute between equal shareholders of a corporation operating a convenience store, seeking permission to sell the business, appointment of a receiver to supervise the sale, forfeiture of a $25,000 deposit under a prior court order, and an order striking the defendant’s statement of defence.

The court denied an adjournment request by the responding shareholder and accepted the recommendation of the court‑appointed monitor that the business be sold promptly to avoid further litigation expenses.

A receiver was appointed to conduct the sale and supervise operations, with the moving party permitted to control day‑to‑day business activities subject to cooperation with the receiver.

The court also ordered forfeiture of the $25,000 deposit in accordance with an earlier order.

However, the request to strike the defendant’s defence was refused given the defendant’s circumstances abroad and the expectation that issues could be addressed upon distribution of sale proceeds.