3 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.
Interlocutory injunction refused where alleged business harm from landfill berms was speculative.
The plaintiffs, owners of a long-standing apple farm and retail market, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from constructing berms on lands adjacent to a nearby landfill.
They argued the berms would eliminate buffer lands, violate environmental approvals, and cause nuisance by creating stigma that would harm their retail business.
The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, primarily in nuisance, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm.
Evidence showed the market had achieved record sales after initial berm construction and any potential losses could be compensated by damages.
The balance of convenience also favoured the defendants due to delay in bringing the motion and the impact an injunction would have on the defendants’ construction plans.
