Larry Wynn Keown

The plaintiff, Voysus Connection Experts Inc., initiated an action alleging fraud and other breaches against former employees.

Voysus obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against two defendants, Tayyab Shaikh and Anisha Shaikh, which was subsequently dismissed due to Voysus's failure of full and frank disclosure.

Voysus's motion to strike certain evidence from the defendants was also dismissed, though a confidentiality order was issued.

This endorsement addresses the costs of both motions.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the Mareva motion and costs for the motion to strike.

The court found that while Voysus's conduct warranted reproach, the defendants' conduct also unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of $70,000.00 for the Mareva motion and ordered each party to bear their own costs for the motion to strike, concluding that the motion to strike was misconceived due to the defendants' actions.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion to continue an ex parte Mareva injunction against two former employees, alleging they engaged in fraudulent schemes involving payroll and expense accounts.

The plaintiff also moved to strike certain evidence produced by the defendants, including surreptitious recordings and confidential documents.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, noting that illegally obtained evidence may be admissible in civil proceedings, but ordered the defendants to maintain the confidentiality of the documents.

The court dismissed the motion to continue the Mareva injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion and failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of defence for failing to comply with multiple interlocutory orders, including a discovery plan.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraudulent conveyance.

The Divisional Court found that the appellants had a history of contumelious conduct, delay, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court held that the Master made no palpable and overriding error in striking the pleadings, and the appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence for non-compliance with a discovery order and failure to pay previous costs.

The plaintiff also sought an order for personal costs against the defendants' lawyer, Mr. Gakiri, for improper conduct during a discovery examination.

The court declined to strike the defence, granting the defendants a final opportunity to comply with the discovery plan and pay outstanding costs.

However, the court found Mr. Gakiri's conduct during the examination improper, constituting an abuse of the discovery process, and ordered him to personally pay a portion of the wasted costs.

Directions were also provided for the future conduct of the defendants' examinations for discovery.