4 total
Motion to dismiss civil fraud action based on foreign criminal non-prosecution denied; security for costs granted.
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff foreign bank's civil action for fraud and breach of contract on the basis of issue estoppel and abuse of process, arguing that Iranian criminal courts had already declined to prosecute the individual defendant for the same conduct.
In the alternative, the defendants sought a stay based on forum non conveniens or an order for security for costs.
The court dismissed the motions based on issue estoppel, abuse of process, and forum non conveniens, finding that the Iranian criminal proceedings did not finally determine civil liability and that Ontario remained an appropriate forum.
However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, ordering the plaintiff to post $175,000 as it had no assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants on a dismissed contempt motion, rejecting claims for substantial indemnity costs.
This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' contempt motion against two defendants, Saad Aljabri and Mohammed Aljabri.
The plaintiffs had sought a contempt order for alleged breaches of a Mareva Order, with potential sanctions including striking defences and default judgments for billions of dollars.
The defendants, as successful parties, sought substantial indemnity costs.
The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous, nor did they pursue the motion for an improper tactical advantage.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants for the contempt motion.
Additionally, the court fixed costs for several preliminary motions, with mixed success for the parties, rejecting a "distributive costs" approach for the contempt motion itself but fixing costs for each preliminary motion separately.
Contempt motion dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove Mareva order clearly applied to gifted assets.
The plaintiffs, a group of private companies, brought a motion seeking to find Dr. Saad Aljabri and his son, Mohammed Aljabri, in contempt of court for allegedly breaching a Mareva Order.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants used assets frozen under the Mareva Order to pay for legal and living expenses, arguing that a purported gift of assets from Dr. Aljabri to Mohammed before the order was a fiction.
The defendants contended that the Mareva Order did not clearly apply to the gifted assets and that the gift was valid.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding that they failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Mareva Order clearly and unequivocally applied to the purportedly gifted assets, or that Dr. Aljabri retained an interest in or control over them.
The court emphasized the high standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) required for civil contempt and that findings from prior civil proceedings (e.g., 'badges of fraud' on a balance of probabilities) do not shift the burden of proof in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings.
Breach of trust claims stayed upon payment into court; motion for divided discovery dismissed.
In two related actions arising from a construction dispute, the Concord Parties moved to stay the Varone Parties' breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act upon payment into court of the admitted claim amount.
The Varone Parties brought a cross-motion to withhold disclosure and production of certain documents until a threshold issue regarding the nature of the services agreement was determined.
The court granted the stay, finding that the trust claims would be moot once fully secured by the payment into court, and that a stay would result in material efficiencies without causing injustice.
The court dismissed the discovery motion, concluding that the threshold issue was not clearly severable from the other claims, including fraud and conspiracy, and that the Varone Parties would not suffer serious prejudice from full disclosure.
