Amy Then is an Ontario lawyer with 4 court cases on record from 2011 to 2022.

What courts has Amy Then appeared in?

Amy Then has appeared in Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, with most appearances at the Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Amy Then handled?

Amy Then has 4 cases on record from 2011 to 2022.

What judges has Amy Then appeared before?

Amy Then has most frequently appeared before Justice Paul M. Perell, Justice Bernadette Dietrich, Justice Robert E. Charney.

Amy Then | Lawyer

4 total

Montaleone v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5303

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated May 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500.

ODCSep 23, 2022

Respondent Counsel

Attorney General of Ontario and $543,515 in Canadian Currency (in rem), 2021 ONSC 4323

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for an order preserving $543,515 in Canadian currency seized during a murder investigation.

The currency was found in the deceased's residence along with large quantities of controlled substances and drug trafficking paraphernalia.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity and granted the preservation order, noting no interests of justice weighed against it.

SCJJun 18, 2021

Applicant Counsel

HMQ v. Madan, 2020 ONSC 8093

The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte Mareva injunction and an interim preservation order against the defendants, who allegedly defrauded a government COVID-19 relief program of at least $11 million.

The moving party brought a motion to vary the Mareva injunction to access frozen funds for legal and living expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to make full disclosure of his worldwide assets and did not discharge the onus of proving that he and his family had no other assets available to pay their expenses.

SCJDec 24, 2020

Respondent Counsel

Direk v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 6375

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order prohibiting the respondents from making further motions in the proceedings without leave of a judge, pursuant to Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying matter involved an application for civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, to which the respondents responded with a counter-application seeking four billion dollars and alleging a massive conspiracy.

The court found that the respondents had initiated an endless string of unsuccessful, frivolous, and vexatious motions containing bizarre and scandalous allegations against judges and officials.

Applying the principles for vexatious proceedings, the court granted the motion and ordered costs of $1,500 payable to the Attorney General.

Applicant Counsel