Ira Edward Book

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to serve a supplementary affidavit of documents and to disclose correspondence with Weichart Workforce Mobility Canada ULC and Ford Motor Company, relating to the sale of the property and relocation benefits.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve a supplementary affidavit and to make best efforts to disclose the requested records, finding them relevant to damages and mitigation.

The court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for non-disclosure, finding such a sanction disproportionate.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $9,500, to be paid at the conclusion of the proceeding.

The defendants, Darren Hendren and Delaxan Ithayaneesan, brought a motion to vary a Mareva injunction to access frozen proprietary assets for living expenses and legal fees, citing reduced income due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide frank disclosure of their assets, income, and expenses, and did not demonstrate that they had no other available assets.

The court also found that a balancing of interests favored the plaintiff, given the strong prima facie case of wrongdoing and the risk of asset dissipation.

The applicant, Lilia Chvartsman, brought a motion seeking the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a condominium.

These funds were the subject of ongoing litigation between the applicant and the respondent, Roman Chernyak, concerning the beneficial ownership of the property.

The respondent opposed the release, arguing that entitlement had not yet been determined.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the funds, being the very subject of the dispute, could not be released until the question of entitlement was resolved.

The applicant sought directions in advance of a hearing under s. 20(4) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for relief from forfeiture of residential property previously ordered forfeited in related criminal proceedings.

The applicant requested that the upcoming hearing be treated as de novo and that the record be purged of references to the earlier Ontario Court of Justice decision ordering forfeiture.

The court held that the s. 20 application was a fresh proceeding in which the judge would not be bound by earlier findings, particularly given the Crown’s concession not to rely on estoppel or res judicata.

However, the earlier ruling remained part of the court record and there was no legal basis to expunge it.

Allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias arising from unrelated comments by the earlier judge in a different case were rejected.

Following the discontinuance of a civil action seeking enforcement of alleged trust agreements relating to several properties, the defendant brought a motion for costs under Rule 23.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs and requested that the plaintiff’s solicitor be personally liable for those costs under Rule 57.07.

The court held that although the action met the minimal threshold of a bona fide claim, the plaintiff’s refusal to provide particulars upon demand unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding.

The court declined to impose costs personally against counsel and rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendant against the plaintiff for the unnecessary motion for particulars.