Justin William Anisman

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory Mareva injunction against the defendants to freeze their assets pending trial.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced him to invest approximately $350,000 in what was represented as a legitimate investment scheme.

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva injunction against one defendant based on a strong prima facie case of civil fraud, evidence of asset dissipation, and irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed as against the other defendants due to insufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case against them.

The court considered whether to permit a motion for summary judgment in a real estate dispute involving the failed sale of three properties.

The plaintiff, Michelle Fraser, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Mathew Pearson, who in turn brought third-party claims against his former counsel and a title insurer.

The court declined to schedule the summary judgment motion at this stage, citing the likelihood of conflicting expert evidence and the need for a more complete record.

The parties were directed to develop an expedited trial preparation plan.

The plaintiff, Slave Paunovski, brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging fraud and dissipation of assets.

The court granted the injunction against Danny and Mara Risteski, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and knowing receipt, but dismissed the motion against Donco Investments Ltd. due to insufficient evidence.

The decision reviews the procedural history, the legal test for Mareva injunctions, and the adequacy of disclosure and evidence provided.

Manuel Neves brought a motion to be removed as a defendant in his personal capacity.

The motion materials had deficiencies, and Neves terminated his counsel's retainer.

Neves ultimately abandoned the motion.

The plaintiffs sought costs for defending the motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $16,126.16 to the plaintiffs, payable within 30 days, noting that Neves's conduct warranted such an award and that self-representation does not shield a litigant from costs.

A timetable for the action was also endorsed.

This is an appeal from a contempt finding against the appellant for violating a non-dissipation and disclosure order.

The appellant was found to have failed to disclose beneficial interests in life insurance policies, concealed the whereabouts of a Ferrari, and disbursed funds contrary to the order.

The appellant argued errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact, including issues with pleading, the existence of assets, the drawing of inferences from circumstantial evidence, and the admissibility of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, upholding the motion judge's findings, and affirming the application of the necessity and reliability test for hearsay and the principles regarding circumstantial evidence.

The defendants moved to set aside an order striking their statement of defence, their noting in default, and a default judgment, arguing they were unaware of the proceedings due to their former counsel's failure to communicate.

The court granted the motion, finding the defendants acted promptly, provided an adequate explanation for default (lack of knowledge due to former counsel's actions), and demonstrated an arguable defence on the merits.

The court emphasized the importance of hearing the matter on its merits and ordered the plaintiff to repay the security into court, conditional on the defendants complying with prior disclosure orders.

A court-appointed receiver sought directions regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a property.

The Applicants, who held a second mortgage, claimed priority over the alleged first mortgagee, Pillar Capital Corporation, arguing that the first mortgage had been paid in full and therefore the subsequent assignment to Pillar Capital was a nullity.

The court found that the first mortgage was indeed paid in full on August 15, 2014, and there was no contemporaneous agreement to assign it.

Consequently, the May 5, 2015, assignment of charge to Pillar Capital was deemed a nullity.

The Applicants' claim for priority was upheld, and the Receiver was directed to pay the remaining amount due on the second mortgage from the sale proceeds.

Claims by Pillar Capital for property management fees, maintenance fees, and certain legal fees were rejected due to lack of proof and contractual basis.

The plaintiff, a law firm, moved for leave to amend its statement of claim to add a defendant and claims for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a property.

The CPL was sought on the basis that a second mortgage granted by the defendant to her brother-in-law was a fraudulent conveyance or an unjust preference.

The court granted leave to amend the claim but denied the motion for a CPL, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a "high probability" of fraudulent intent or unjust preference, as required when judgment has not yet been obtained.

The court found sufficient consideration for the mortgage and no clear evidence of insolvency or intent to defraud.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing their action regarding a property sale.

The appellants challenged the sale on multiple grounds, including that procedures in a manual were not followed, that the motion judge was biased, that no auction occurred, and that the sale was improvident.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court judgment, holding that the manual procedures did not have the force of law, the bias argument lacked merit, the motion judge properly accepted evidence that the auction occurred, and the appellants had adequate notice and failed to provide credible evidence of impropriety.

The applicants sought to set aside a sheriff's sale of their property, which was conducted to satisfy outstanding costs awards.

They alleged the sale was improvident, the required process was not followed, and they did not receive proper notice.

The court found that the sale price was not improvident based on a realtor's opinion, the auction was properly conducted, and the applicants had actual notice of the sale despite a minor procedural non-compliance with posting requirements.

The application was dismissed.