Chris Somerville

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant for over $4 million arising from fraudulent schemes, brought a motion for orders under Rule 60.18(6) to examine the defendant's spouse and compel document production from non-party banks and accountants.

The plaintiffs also sought leave under Rule 60.08(2) to issue a notice of garnishment more than six years after the judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had faced difficulty enforcing the judgment due to the defendant's refusals and non-compliance with previous orders, and that the non-parties likely possessed relevant information regarding the defendant's assets and income.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant Harold Spring, brought a motion seeking an order for examination in aid of execution of non-parties and production of documents from non-parties under Rule 60.18(6), and leave to issue a notice of garnishment more than six years after judgment under Rule 60.08(2).

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated difficulty in enforcing the judgments and had exhausted available means, and that the non-parties likely possessed relevant information.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had not waived their rights regarding garnishment despite the delay, and that the garnishee might be indebted to the defendant.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents breached a cease trade order by issuing approximately US$7.4 million in convertible debentures, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans against the individual respondents, finding their conduct egregious and demonstrating a serious risk to the public.

The Commission ordered disgorgement of the funds obtained from new debentures, but excluded the value of rolled debentures as no new funds were obtained.

Administrative penalties totaling $600,000 and costs totaling $100,000 were also ordered against the individual respondents.

The defendant sought leave to amend pleadings to introduce new claims, including for unpaid wages, and to particularize existing claims, despite the advanced stage of litigation.

The plaintiff opposed, citing abuse of process, potential delay, and limitation period issues for the new claims.

The court granted leave, noting that the core claim for statutory entitlements had been present since the initial pleadings and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated non-compensable prejudice.

The decision allowed the plaintiff to plead limitation periods as a defence and proposed terms, including the potential severance of the counterclaim, to mitigate trial delays.