Howard Floyd Manis

The plaintiffs sought costs in relation to an ex parte Mareva, Norwich and preservation order obtained against the defendants and for responding to a motion to set aside the order.

Farhad Eshfagh, who was partially successful in having the Mareva injunction lifted, also sought costs.

The court declined to award costs at the interlocutory stage, finding it premature to do so given that the matter remains ongoing and no final determination on the merits has been made.

The court rejected claims for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible or scandalous conduct warranting such an award.

Costs were ordered to be in the cause, to be determined at trial.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's claim for repayment of loans to the defendant was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff and defendant were long-time friends, and the plaintiff loaned the defendant significant sums over several years.

The defendant did not dispute the loans or the amounts but argued the claim was out of time.

The court found the loans were not demand loans, and the limitation period was not suspended by part payments or acknowledgments made after the period expired.

The court concluded the claim was statute-barred and dismissed the action, despite finding the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits.

The decision concerns a motion to set aside or vary a Mareva injunction, Norwich order, and preservation order obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs in a cryptocurrency mining business dispute.

The court finds a strong prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation against most defendants, upholds the Mareva and preservation orders (except as against Farhad Eshfagh), and addresses the standards for full and frank disclosure on ex parte motions, risk of dissipation, and balance of convenience.

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt by the defendants, who breached a Mareva order by failing to disclose real property in Spain and denying ownership under oath.

The court finds that the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from dealing with the Spanish property and to require that net rental income from the property be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until personal liability is determined.

The court also awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, with a set-off for costs on the motion to set aside the Mareva injunction.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.

This costs endorsement follows summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Samuel Stern, in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court awards substantial indemnity costs of $62,817.10 to the plaintiff, finding the defendant’s conduct intentionally delayed the proceedings and wasted time and expense.

The court reviews the contractual entitlement to costs, the relevant statutory and case law principles, and the proportionality of the costs award.

The plaintiff, Samuel Stern, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Mehran Moeinifar, for an unpaid $1,000,000 loan secured by a mortgage and a personal guarantee.

The court granted summary judgment in the amount of $1,445,673.52 (including interest), finding no genuine issue for trial.

The defendant’s arguments regarding lack of Ontario jurisdiction and forum non conveniens were rejected, as the defendant had attorned to Ontario’s jurisdiction and the relevant contracts were made in Ontario.

The court found the guarantee enforceable and the defendant liable.

The plaintiff, Maurizio Sprovieri, sought summary judgment for repayment of loans totaling $314,278.52, including interest, made to the defendant, James Christopher Demetriou.

The defendant did not dispute the existence or amount of the loans but argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended the claim was not discoverable until after June 8, 2019, due to the defendant’s representations that repayment depended on the outcome of a separate lawsuit.

The court found a conflict in the evidence regarding these representations and directed the issue to proceed to a mini trial.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) brought a motion against Samuel J. Berkovits (debtor) and 1539058 Ontario Inc. (garnishee) to enforce a judgment via garnishment.

CIBC argued that the garnishee's statement was materially false and misleading, effectively amounting to no statement at all, due to late delivery, omissions, and a lack of disclosure regarding payments and reimbursements to the debtor.

The court found that the debtor and garnishee had arranged their finances to avoid garnishment.

The court deemed the garnishee's statement materially deficient and ordered the garnishee to provide extensive documentation regarding all compensation, payments, and personal expenses paid on behalf of the debtor.

The determination of the final amount payable by the garnishee was adjourned pending this disclosure.

The Trustee in bankruptcy applied under s. 96(1)(b)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for a declaration that the bankrupt's 2018 transfer of his interest in a Florida property to his wife was a transfer at undervalue and void.

The court found that the transfer met the preconditions for a transfer at undervalue, including being to a non-arm's length party within five years of bankruptcy, and that the bankrupt intended to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors, as evidenced by "badges of fraud" such as existing lawsuits and inadequate consideration.

The court declared the transfer of the bankrupt's half interest in the property void and ordered the wife to pay half of the net proceeds from her subsequent sale of the property to the Trustee.

The Trustee in bankruptcy, msi Spergel Inc., brought a motion seeking various reliefs against the bankrupt, Jose Lava Suguitan, and his spouse, Sarah Morrison, as well as financial institutions and a bookkeeper.

The court granted orders compelling Mr. Suguitan to provide information and documentation regarding his personal affairs, and Ms. Morrison to answer undertakings from her examination.

The court also ordered banks and Ayesha Meher to provide Mr. Suguitan's personal banking and tax information.

However, the court dismissed the Trustee's request for corporate banking and accounting information, citing the principle of corporate separateness and insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil.

The motion for a declaration that the transfer of a Florida property was at undervalue, a preference, or a fraudulent conveyance was adjourned to a Commercial List judge due to the registrar's lack of jurisdiction for such declaratory relief.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the corporate and individual respondents due to undisputed defaults under security documents, with an outstanding debt exceeding $12 million.

Despite multiple adjournments granted by the court to allow the respondents to secure refinancing, no credible evidence of a firm financing commitment materialized, and the respondents failed to cooperate with the court-appointed monitor.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver, citing the respondents' lack of transparency and repeated failures to meet payment obligations or secure alternative financing.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs referred back to the court following previous motions and applications.

Cheadles LLP sought substantial indemnity costs of $38,137.85, while Walter Zanewycz argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found that costs were payable by Zanewycz to Cheadles LLP due to Zanewycz's conduct, which included unfocused materials, relitigation of matters, unsubstantiated allegations, and unrealistic claims.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis, but the quantum was reduced from the amount sought, primarily by disallowing costs for multiple solicitors and law clerk time.

The final award was $18,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The bankrupt moved to rescind or annul a bankruptcy order after her father purchased the petitioning creditor's debt by way of assignment.

The bankrupt argued this constituted a fundamental change in circumstances, as her father had no intention of enforcing the debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made at the time it was granted.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to annul the bankruptcy, noting the public interest in the bankruptcy regime and the bankrupt's failure to explain why the petitioning creditor was forced to take numerous enforcement steps.

In a complex receivership and bankruptcy-related proceeding involving a charitable foundation and associated corporations, the applicants brought a motion relating to governance and procedural matters in ongoing litigation.

The court addressed scheduling issues arising after a prior endorsement and dealt with a motion seeking removal of the remaining director of the foundation.

The court directed that the director indicate whether she would consent to removal and scheduled further steps if consent was not provided.

The court also rescheduled examinations and cross-examinations of two individuals in Buffalo, New York, set procedural timelines, and confirmed certain agreed limitations on director liability and additional costs awards.

In complex receivership and bankruptcy-related proceedings involving a charitable foundation and associated corporations, the court addressed scheduling and procedural issues arising after prior bankruptcy orders.

Motions concerning the removal of directors and issues involving a third-party entity were adjourned on consent to dates to be set by the trial coordinator.

Examinations of certain responding parties were cancelled due to immigration concerns relating to re-entry into the United States.

The court directed that the examinations proceed in Buffalo, New York under Ontario procedural law, ordered the responding parties to seek necessary U.S. visa permissions, and required advance funding of travel costs for opposing counsel and the receiver.

The endorsement also addressed potential venue issues in a related promissory note action.

Minority shareholders sought relief under ss. 207 and 248 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) to restrain a majority shareholder from convening a meeting to remove a director and potentially distribute corporate assets following the sale of the company’s principal property.

The dispute concerned three contested liabilities, including a claimed success fee, an assigned commission agreement, and disputed legal accounts.

The court found that allowing the majority shareholder to control the board and distribute funds without maintaining adequate reserves could constitute oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct toward minority shareholders and potential creditors.

The court enjoined the shareholders’ meeting and ordered that corporate funds be preserved through specific holdbacks pending determination of the disputed claims.

Following the dismissal of a plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment in a franchise dispute, the court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs relying on two offers to settle, but the court found that neither offer triggered enhanced cost consequences because their conditions were not met.

The court held that the appropriate scale was partial indemnity throughout.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the Court of Appeal guidance in Boucher, the court fixed costs at $22,000 all-inclusive payable by the unsuccessful moving parties.