Justin Necpal

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking payment of funds misappropriated by the defendants, who had previously been subject to a Mareva injunction and held in contempt of court.

The defendants' counsel of record requested an adjournment, arguing he was not formally served, though he acknowledged having no instructions from his clients who had absconded.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the defendants had actual notice and were using procedural technicalities to delay.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering the release of funds paid into court, transfer of specific accounts, payment of misappropriated amounts, and a tracing order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine the appropriate sanction for the Developer Defendants' continuing contempt of a Mareva and Disclosure Order, following a Court of Appeal decision remitting the matter for re-sentencing.

The court found that the defendants had still not purged their contempt, having failed to properly account for the plaintiffs' $9 million investment.

The court sentenced the individual defendants to 30 days of intermittent incarceration, struck the statement of defence, and deemed the defendants noted in default, with leave to apply to file a defence only if they fully purge their contempt.

The plaintiffs obtained a Mareva injunction against their former employee, the defendant, who diverted funds from the plaintiffs' bank accounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to release $50,000 of the frozen funds held in escrow to pay their legal fees.

The court found that the plaintiffs established a proprietary right to the funds and authorized the release of $50,000.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay $39,000 into court from her personal Alipay account and to produce a further and better affidavit of documents that complies with Rule 30.03(2).

The applicants, judgment creditors from US proceedings involving fraudulent lending schemes, brought a motion to declare certain trusts established by the respondents as invalid shams.

The receiver's investigation traced funds from the fraudulent schemes to the trust properties and identified numerous 'badges of fraud'.

The respondents failed to produce evidence refuting the receiver's findings.

The court applied the McGoey factors, found the trusts were a sham, and ordered the trust assets to be part of the receivership estate available to creditors.

The plaintiffs, minority shareholders of two companies that owned marinas, sought leave to bring a derivative action against the companies' solicitor regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the marinas.

The plaintiffs alleged the solicitor improperly distributed the funds to the majority shareholder or companies controlled by him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs met the first three parts of the test for a derivative action, they failed to demonstrate that the proposed action was in the best interests of the companies, as there was no evidence the companies suffered a loss and the plaintiffs' true claim was personal.

The applicants, judgment creditors of the respondents for over $26 million USD arising from a fraudulent lending scheme, moved to discontinue the payment of living expenses and legal fees to the respondents and their related trusts from the receivership estate.

The trusts brought a cross-motion to strike the Receiver's Eleventh Report, arguing the Receiver exceeded its mandate by tracing funds and making observations about badges of a sham trust.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the Receiver acted within its court-ordered investigatory powers and did not usurp the court's role.

The court granted the applicants' motion to terminate funding, holding that the respondents had exhausted their appeals, were now judgment debtors, and failed to meet the test for funding from frozen assets, as they had not provided full disclosure and the funds belonged to their creditors.

The plaintiffs sought penalties against the defendants for their continued contempt of court orders requiring them to provide an accounting of $9,000,000 in allegedly defrauded funds, information about luxury automobiles, contact information, and disclosure.

The court found that the defendants had not purged their contempt and provided implausible explanations for their non-compliance.

As a penalty, the court granted judgment against the defendants, striking their ability to defend the action, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for a Mareva injunction in a complex commercial fraud action, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to one group of defendants, finding that while a strong prima facie case of fraud was established against them, the injunction was denied on other grounds.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to two other groups of defendants against whom the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud.

The court also addressed costs related to advance funding applications under the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction (asset freezing order) against several defendants, alleging a complex commercial fraud involving misappropriated funds, illicit acquisition fees, and kickbacks across multiple real estate development projects.

While the court found a strong prima facie case of fraud against the defendant Lee regarding his receipt of concealed acquisition fees, it found no such case against the other responding defendants.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the motion against all defendants because the plaintiffs failed to establish a real risk of asset dissipation, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the extraordinary remedy.

An employer sought declarations that a senior executive’s employment agreement requiring six months’ written notice of resignation was valid and enforceable.

The employee resigned and intended to join a competitor before the notice period expired, arguing the contract violated the Employment Standards Act, lacked consideration, functioned as an unlawful non‑compete, and that he had “Good Reason” to resign without notice.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the executive had accepted the promotion and contract, the notice provision did not breach the ESA, and the clause was not equivalent to a non‑competition covenant because the employee remained employed and paid during the notice period.

The employee also failed to establish a material alteration of duties or to comply with contractual procedures for asserting “Good Reason.” The court declared the contract binding and confirmed the six‑month notice period applied.