James Round

Following earlier rulings on motions involving Mareva injunctions, fraudulent conveyance allegations, and summary judgment on promissory notes, the court determined the appropriate costs awards among multiple parties across two related actions.

Certain defendants who were unsuccessful targets of fraud allegations sought substantial indemnity costs after the claims against them were dismissed.

The court held that allegations of fraud justified substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs failed to establish the claims.

In the Klein action, the court balanced mixed success by awarding costs to both sides and setting them off.

In the Finkelstein action, substantial indemnity costs were awarded to certain defendants in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought motions arising from an ATM business dispute, unpaid unsecured promissory notes, and allegations that mortgages granted on a matrimonial home were fraudulent conveyances.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the promissory note claim or the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The court dissolved Mareva injunctions in both actions, finding the record did not satisfy the stringent test for pre-judgment asset-freezing relief.

The court granted summary judgment for $710,000 plus interest on the promissory notes against the business partners and their business entities, dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claims, and refused a certificate of pending litigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the defendants’ statement of defence, counterclaim and crossclaim.

The impugned pleadings alleged that the action was brought for abusive tactical purposes to suppress competition and also included allegations regarding the plaintiff’s reputation for unfair business practices.

The court held that the abuse of process allegations failed to plead the required material facts establishing a collateral purpose and a distinct overt act beyond the litigation itself.

The court further found that the reputational allegations were irrelevant and inserted solely to attack character.

The impugned paragraphs were struck as frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous, with leave granted to amend.