James Plotkin

The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought costs after successfully prosecuting seventeen lawsuits against individuals and companies who received payments from a bankrupt entity.

The court determined reasonable costs, discounting for settled actions and applying Small Claims Court caps where applicable, ultimately awarding $232,500 in total costs and allocating them among the defendants.

In the context of ongoing oppression remedy actions, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings on the eve of the continuation of the trial, necessitating an adjournment.

The plaintiffs subsequently sought an adjournment of their own motions to amend in order to cross-examine a deponent.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the trial preparation thrown away and the motions, payable as a condition precedent to the plaintiffs proceeding with their motions.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct in the litigation, including late decision-making and failing to properly plead discoverability, unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and warranted sanction.

The court awarded the defendants $37,450 in substantial indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiffs as a condition precedent to proceeding with their motions to amend.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to a co-tenancy agreement to resolve a dispute over the conveyance of residential lots.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the agreement's 'Applicable Law' clause, which attorned to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario courts, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the contract must be read as a whole, finding that the specific arbitration clause qualified the general applicable law clause.

The court appointed an arbitrator to determine the dispute.

The applicant appealed three arbitral awards dismissing its claims against the respondent municipality for remediation costs, additional construction costs, and interest related to a waterfront development project.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator made reversible errors of law and breached procedural fairness in all three awards by relying on legal theories and defences—such as an implied 'time is of the essence' term, implied fiduciary-like duties for a construction manager, and equitable estoppel—that were never pleaded or argued by the parties.

The court held that these errors were not trivial and tainted the outcomes, directing the parties to schedule a case management conference to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., a company that operated a Ponzi scheme, brought 17 actions against various investors to recover payments made to them prior to the bankruptcy.

The Trustee sought recovery under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for preferential payments and transfers at undervalue, and under the common law for unjust enrichment regarding usurious interest and commission payments.

The court found that Golden Oaks was a Ponzi scheme and was insolvent when the payments were made.

The court granted the preference claims against certain defendants who were not dealing at arm's length with the company.

The court also granted the unjust enrichment claims for the return of usurious interest payments, finding that the promissory notes providing for criminal rates of interest were illegal and did not constitute a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The claims for return of commission payments were dismissed, as the referral agreements did not violate the Securities Act and provided a juristic reason for the payments.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bankruptcy trustee's claims for the return of usurious interest and unlawful commissions paid as part of a Ponzi scheme.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and that breach of statute is not a valid civil cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the trustee completed its investigation into the complex fraud.

The court also granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the pleadings to explicitly frame the claims in unjust enrichment.