Hilary Book

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

The applicants sought a declaration and mandatory order requiring the respondent minority shareholder to complete a share purchase transaction pursuant to a Shareholders' Agreement.

The respondent argued the applicants repudiated the agreement by failing to comply with the valuation process, specifically by unilaterally appointing real estate appraisers and instructing accountants to alter financial statements to exclude a settlement payment.

The court found the applicants fundamentally breached the agreement's valuation provisions, depriving the respondent of the bargained-for process.

The application was dismissed, allowing the respondent to remain a minority shareholder.

The third party, an appraisal company, moved under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike a third party claim brought by the defendants for negligent misrepresentation.

The defendants alleged the appraiser negligently undervalued a property, causing a purchaser to back out of a sale.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding it plain and obvious that the claim could not succeed because the appraiser owed no duty of care to the defendants, having prepared the report exclusively for a lender, and because the defendants did not rely on the appraisal.

Following a trial judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the parties made written submissions on the quantification of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court fixed prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 1.3 percent.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants engaged in egregious, scandalous, and outrageous conduct throughout the litigation, including misleading the court and breaching a court order.

The plaintiff's costs were fixed at $568,292.05.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The plaintiff, a mortgage lender, suffered a loss when a required postponement of a prior charge was not obtained, leaving it as a third mortgagee rather than a first mortgagee.

The title insurer acknowledged coverage and paid the bulk of the loss after the property was sold under power of sale.

The plaintiff sued to recover approximately $40,000 in disputed property maintenance expenses and legal fees incurred by its independently retained counsel, as well as a determination on the interest calculation.

The court reduced the claimed expenses and legal fees, finding that some costs lacked strict proof, involved personal benefit to the plaintiff's principal, and were unnecessary given the insurer's early concession of coverage.

The court also ruled that interest was to be calculated and compounded semi-annually.

The moving party sought enforcement of a settlement agreement requiring the bankruptcy trustee to pay $300,000 toward a previously awarded costs order.

The trustee argued the bankruptcy estate lacked sufficient funds and that payment would prejudice its ability to pay its own fees and ongoing litigation costs.

The court interpreted the settlement memorandum and held that the first $300,000 of the moving party’s costs were expressly not subordinated to the trustee’s fees and expenses.

The trustee’s failure to reserve those funds could not defeat the contractual arrangement.

The court ordered payment of $300,000 in trust to counsel holding a solicitor’s lien, with no costs of the motion.

Following an earlier decision granting relief from forfeiture in a loan dispute, the court addressed competing claims for costs between the parties.

The successful applicant sought partial indemnity costs of the application and requested that the award be set off against the loan repayment amount.

The respondent claimed full indemnity costs pursuant to a contractual debenture provision for enforcement expenses.

The court held that although contractual provisions for costs are generally respected, judicial discretion remains and may be exercised where the successful party has engaged in inequitable conduct.

Finding the respondent’s conduct unreasonable and inequitable, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs and refused to enforce the respondent’s contractual entitlement to costs.

Remarkable Energy Inc. pledged its feed-in tariff (FIT) contract with the Ontario Power Authority as security for a loan from Crosscurrent Energy Corp. Crosscurrent foreclosed on the security after Remarkable failed to respond to a notice of foreclosure within 15 days.

Remarkable applied for relief from forfeiture.

Crosscurrent argued Remarkable acted in bad faith by failing to negotiate a final price for the sale of the FIT contract.

The court found no bad faith, noted the demand for payment lacked proper details, and held the breach was not grave compared to the value of the FIT contract.

The court granted Remarkable relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff sought costs of $26,318.02 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully defeating the defendants' motion to stay the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The defendants did not dispute entitlement but argued the quantum was excessive, suggesting a range of $10,000 to $14,000.

The court found the time expended by the plaintiff was excessive for a partial indemnity award and fixed costs at $21,000 all inclusive.

In advance of a scheduled sanction hearing for contempt findings, the trustee in bankruptcy and two contemnors moved for broad production of documents arising from related litigation in California involving the respondent corporation.

The moving parties sought depositions, financial statements, and additional litigation materials, arguing the information was relevant to their ability to answer or mitigate prior contempt findings and the sanctions to be imposed.

The court applied the relevance standard previously articulated for the sanction hearing and declined to grant a sweeping production order that would effectively retry the foreign proceedings.

Limited production was ordered, including five deposition transcripts of a key corporate officer and financial statements of the respondent corporation.

Requests for additional documents concerning alleged “straw sale” transactions were refused.

Following a fraudulent conveyance trial in which allegations of conspiracy and damages against a defendant were rejected, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs.

Although the court had found the defendant assisted in attempts to hinder collection efforts, it declined to impose damages and granted no substantive relief against her.

The court held that her status as a contemnor did not bar a costs award, particularly given that the plaintiffs had pursued duplicative litigation contrary to earlier representations and had failed to prove damages.

Substantial indemnity costs were warranted due to unproven allegations of fraud and the breach of a prior representation to the court.

Costs of $665,990.96 were awarded jointly and severally against the opposing parties, with a solicitor’s lien recognized under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendants, previously found in contempt of multiple court orders relating to bankruptcy and asset disclosure, sought an order requiring broad disclosure of documents from the plaintiffs for an upcoming contempt sanction hearing.

The court considered privilege claims over numerous documents, including solicitor‑client communications, settlement communications, and materials arising from joint retainers.

The court held that several documents were not protected or that privilege was displaced by competing public interests, including the integrity of ex parte orders and prior incarceration resulting from the proceedings.

Evidence suggesting potential fraud by related corporate actors and possible nondisclosure in earlier applications justified expanded disclosure.

The court ordered production of specified materials and directed that the corporate plaintiff produce all further relevant documents subject to a privilege schedule.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a California judgment of approximately (US)$17 million against the defendant Jay Chiang and sought a declaration that the debt survives his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the BIA.

The plaintiffs also brought a second action alleging that Jay Chiang and numerous family members engaged in fraudulent conveyances and a conspiracy to hide assets and frustrate collection efforts.

The court enforced the California judgment in the amount of (US)$9,678,832 but declined to declare that the debt survives bankruptcy, finding no fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs.

The court found Jay Chiang liable for fraudulent conveyances and conspiracy, but dismissed the claims against most of the other family members, finding they were unwitting conduits used by Jay Chiang.

The plaintiff mortgagor brought an action against the defendant mortgagees for the improvident sale of a 125-acre development property under a power of sale.

The property was sold for $12.5 million.

The court found that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain the fair market value of the property, having listed it at an inordinately low price, failed to adequately market it, unreasonably restricted the field of potential buyers, and acted with undue haste.

After reviewing competing appraisal evidence, the court determined the fair market value of the property at the time of sale was $16 million.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3.5 million in damages, representing the difference between the fair market value and the sale price.