Kenyah Coombs

The moving plaintiff sought summary judgment against a numbered company and its sole director to recover funds given for a failed cryptocurrency investment.

The company did not dispute its indebtedness but the director opposed personal liability.

The court found the director made fraudulent misrepresentations by guaranteeing that stop losses would protect the plaintiff's crypto investment capital when he had no basis to believe this was possible and later failed to disclose that stop losses could not be set on the chosen crypto platforms.

The court pierced the corporate veil under the Transamerica test, holding the director personally liable on a joint and several basis for the plaintiff's out-of-pocket loss of $152,086.41, being the principal investment less partial repayments.

As the loan agreement was tainted by fraud, the plaintiff was entitled to rescission and tort damages but not contractual interest.

This costs endorsement addresses the Applicant's request for full indemnity costs following a successful urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court reviews the relevant Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle and the factors for awarding costs, including the impact of the Respondent's mental health on her ability to respond to settlement offers.

Ultimately, the court awards partial indemnity costs, deferring payment to be set off against equalization or paid from the Respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal determined that the offer to settle did not automatically trigger costs consequences or justify an extraordinary award of substantial indemnity costs, maintaining its original order for partial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned a failed real estate transaction where the appellant sought the return of a $70,000 deposit after failing to close due to financing issues, despite the respondent subsequently selling the property at a profit.

The appellant argued that retaining the deposit was unconscionable, citing the respondent's lack of loss and the appellant's alleged lack of capacity due to mental health struggles and bereavement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that it was not unconscionable for the respondent to retain the deposit, as there was no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and the appellant had intended to close the transaction.