Karen Morimoto

The trustee in bankruptcy moved for a phase-one determination that profit payments made by Douglas Grozelle to net winners in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme were void as against creditors and recoverable for the estate.

The court found the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme, held insolvency and fraudulent intent could be inferred globally, and concluded the payments were void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and not saved by good-faith or good-consideration defences.

The court approved a two-stage insolvency process: common liability issues resolved summarily now, with individualized quantum determinations in phase two.

The winners’ cross-motion for broad directions attacking the trustee’s process and authority was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment and specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a residential property, alleging the defendant breached the contract by failing to provide vacant possession and clear the garage on the closing date.

The defendant argued the APS, particularly an appended schedule, did not require vacant possession by the closing date.

The court interpreted the contract, giving precedence to the added schedule over the standard form, and found that the defendant was not obligated to provide vacant possession by the chosen closing date, as the Residential Tenancies Act's notice period extended beyond it.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding no breach occurred.

The applicants in an estate litigation matter brought a motion to remove the respondent Estate Trustee's counsel of record.

The applicants alleged bad faith, a conflict of interest arising from the lawyer's past marriage to the applicants' sister and past representation of two applicants, and the likelihood that the lawyer would be called as a witness at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no disqualifying conflict of interest, no risk of misuse of confidential information, and no real basis to believe the lawyer would likely provide material evidence at trial.