Daniel Ebady

The plaintiff, a retired senior, brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich Order after being defrauded of $99,980.

The funds, intended for an RBC investment, were wired to an account held by the defendant company, whose director, Mohammed Ali Sarfaraz Awan, failed to return the funds despite promises.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, limited to $200,000, finding a strong prima facie case of unjust enrichment, civil fraud, conspiracy, and misrepresentation, and a real risk of dissipation.

A Norwich Order was also granted against Royal Bank of Canada to disclose information for tracing funds and identifying wrongdoers.

The court declined to dispense with the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, deeming it a customary requirement.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which pleaded thirteen causes of action arising from an internet contract for bitcoin investment.

The court found the Statement of Claim to be based on fictionalized facts from the plaintiff's memory rather than the actual contract.

The court struck the Statement of Claim with leave to amend, but specifically struck claims against individual directors, conversion, breach of the Competition Act, and intentional infliction of mental distress without leave to amend.

The claim for breach of Colombian law was struck with leave to amend to properly plead foreign law.

The applicant sought remedies under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, alleging the respondent operated their jointly owned bubble tea franchise corporations in an oppressive manner.

The applicant claimed she was excluded from management, denied financial information, and that the respondent misappropriated business opportunities.

The respondent denied the allegations and alternatively sought an order for the sale of the applicant's shares without a finding of oppression.

The court found numerous material facts in dispute, credibility issues, and a need for expert evidence regarding management fees and residency status.

Consequently, the court ordered the issues raised in the application to proceed to trial and declined to order a sale of shares on the current record.

The Plaintiffs, having succeeded on a motion for partial summary judgment, sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The Defendants failed to file responding materials to either the summary judgment motion or the costs submissions, and had previously failed to comply with court-imposed terms.

The Plaintiffs argued for full indemnity costs due to the Defendants' failure to concede a clear claim and alleged fraud.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found insufficient evidence of fraud but sanctioned the Defendants for their litigation conduct, including forcing the motion and delaying the matter.

The court fixed the Plaintiffs' all-inclusive costs at $20,000, reducing the requested amount due to unrecoverable legal research and the perceived lack of justification for two counsel.

The plaintiff, an unregistered real estate salesperson, sued the defendant brokerage for unpaid commissions.

The court found that the plaintiff had performed services in connection with trades in real estate, but his claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and wrongful dismissal were barred by section 9 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, which prohibits actions for remuneration by unregistered persons.

Although the action was dismissed, the court ordered the successful defendants to pay the plaintiff's full indemnity costs due to their reprehensible conduct in hiring an unregistered person and needlessly prolonging the litigation.