N/A

This ex-parte motion was brought by the plaintiffs for a Mareva injunction and an Anton Pillar order in aid of litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs alleged a complex fraud perpetrated by the defendants, involving falsified investment schemes and forged documents.

The court found a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation and destruction of evidence by the defendants, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the orders.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction to grant such equitable relief in aid of foreign proceedings.

Mareva injunction, Anton Pillar order, and a sealing order were granted.

This motion sought the discontinuance of a certified and settled class action concerning the Participating Co-Operatives of Ontario Trusteed Revised Pension Plan.

The action had been certified in 2005 and a multi-million-dollar settlement approved in 2008 with most defendants.

Default judgment was obtained against the remaining Workman Defendants, and funds were recovered through enforcement proceedings in the Cayman Islands.

Class counsel paid the recovered funds to the Plan Administrator, who was ordered to locate participants and distribute entitlements.

With all issues of liability, remedy, and distribution addressed, and the Plan Administrator having completed its tasks, the court ordered the class action discontinued as there was no further reason for it to continue.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for an order validating and substituting service on the defendants, Guyana National Newspapers Limited (GNNL) and Mark Anthony Devonish, due to the impracticality of personal service amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the order, dispensing with service of the motion itself and ordering substituted service by email for all future pleadings and documents.

No costs were ordered.

The court granted two DNA warrant applications under s. 487 of the Criminal Code in relation to charges of aggravated assault.

While the warrants were issued, the judge provided an endorsement identifying significant deficiencies in the application materials and procedures, including poor formatting, redundancy, spelling errors, lack of paragraph numbering, missing conditions in draft warrants, and inadequate Crown review.

The judge used the decision as a teaching opportunity to address systemic issues in warrant applications.