Joel Levitt

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a summary judgment of $50,000 obtained by the self-represented plaintiff.

The defendant argued that the summary judgment motion proceeded without proper notice to her or her counsel.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant's lawyer with notice of the return date for the summary judgment motion.

The court granted the motion and set aside the summary judgment, allowing the defendant an opportunity to have her defence dealt with on the merits.

The moving parties (respondents in the main application) brought a motion to set aside two previous court orders.

The first order dissolved a real estate partnership and required the moving parties to pay compensation, which they argued was obtained without disclosing that they had appealed an earlier order striking their pleadings.

The second order dismissed their motion for leave to appeal after they failed to attend the hearing.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding that the non-disclosure was not material as the pleadings had been struck for non-compliance with court orders, and the failure to attend the leave motion was not due to inadvertence.

The plaintiff creditor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to impose liability on multiple defendants arising from unpaid invoices for tires supplied to a corporate purchaser.

The plaintiff relied on alleged non‑compliance with the Bulk Sales Act and alleged fraudulent conveyances arising from the sale of the debtor company.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the Bulk Sales Act claim had not been pleaded and the evidentiary record did not establish fraudulent conveyance or liability of the additional defendants.

On a cross‑motion, certain defendants successfully sought to vacate a certificate of pending litigation and dissolve a Mareva injunction obtained ex parte, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an interest in land or a strong prima facie case with risk of asset dissipation.

In a receivership proceeding, the court considered a motion by a court-appointed receiver seeking a contempt finding against an individual who had taken possession of gold bars purchased by the debtor companies shortly before the receivership.

The receiver alleged that the respondent failed to comply with court orders requiring delivery of the precious metals and disclosure of information about their whereabouts.

Applying the three-part test for civil contempt, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent knowingly breached both orders by failing to return at least some of the gold bars under his control and by withholding contact information for individuals involved in their distribution.

The court emphasized that contempt proceedings serve both punitive and coercive purposes to uphold the rule of law and enforce compliance with court orders.

The respondent was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in Canada unless he purged his contempt within seven days by delivering available gold bars and providing the required information.