Jesse Watts

The respondents requested a stay of the applicant's proceeding under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the applicant was seeking to intervene in a related mortgage enforcement action where the same issues would be resolved.

The court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 2.1 is intended for proceedings that are abusive on their face, not to stay one proceeding pending developments in another.

The court noted that any concerns about redundancy should be raised in the related action or through an ordinary motion for abuse of process or res judicata.

The proposed intervenor sought leave to intervene as an added party in the defendant's motion for leave to appeal a Mareva injunction.

The proposed intervenor argued he had an interest in the proceeding because the motion judge made significant adverse findings about his integrity and conduct, including allegations of operating a Ponzi scheme.

While the Divisional Court found the proposed intervenor had an interest in the subject matter, it declined to exercise its discretion to permit intervention.

The court noted that the defendant would likely advance the same arguments and the proposed intervenor would have other opportunities to defend his reputation in related ongoing litigation.

The motion to intervene was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to file a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the defendant's property in Richmond Hill, Ontario.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% undivided ownership interest in the property based on a partnership agreement executed in 2017.

The defendant disputed the plaintiff's ownership claim, alleging he solely funded the property purchase and that the plaintiff's contribution was insufficient to establish partnership rights.

The court found the plaintiff demonstrated a triable issue regarding her interest in the property and granted leave to issue the CPL, finding the equities supported the order.

Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze approximately $6.1 million in settlement funds held in the defendant's solicitor's trust account.

The funds were allegedly derived from a fraudulent investment scheme involving the defendant corporation, which was controlled by individuals connected to a Ponzi scheme operated by Arash Missaghi.

The plaintiffs alleged they were induced to invest substantial sums through misrepresentation and fraud.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, that assets were in the jurisdiction, that there was a risk of dissipation, and that irreparable harm would result if the funds were distributed.

The court also allowed the defendant to withdraw $250,000 from the frozen funds for legal expenses.

The court voided six promissory notes and struck out related mortgages registered by the plaintiffs against the defendants' properties, finding that the notes were materially altered without consent, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court also declined to grant equitable mortgages or certificates of pending litigation, citing the plaintiffs' inequitable conduct and failure to meet statutory tests.

The decision addresses issues of forged notes, after-acquired property, corporate personality, and the application of the Family Law Act to matrimonial homes.