2 total
Motion for return of shares dismissed; trust agreement found to be a contractual arrangement, not a bare trust.
The moving party and respondent entered into a joint venture to develop condominiums.
After the moving party's family assets were frozen, he transferred his shares in the project companies to the respondent to allow the respondent to secure financing, executing a document styled as a 'trust agreement'.
The moving party later brought a motion seeking the return of the shares, arguing the agreement created a bare trust that could be collapsed under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the document was a contractual agreement rather than a trust, and that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier would not apply regardless because the moving party did not have absolute beneficial ownership of the shares.
Motion for Mareva injunction dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove real risk of asset dissipation.
The plaintiff brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, seeking to freeze their assets based on an alleged debt owed under a Repayment Agreement.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants were planning to move to the United States and dissipate their Ontario assets to avoid judgment.
The court found that while the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case for the debt, there was insufficient evidence to prove a real risk that the defendants were removing assets from the jurisdiction to avoid judgment.
The motion for a Mareva injunction was dismissed.
