P. James Zibarras

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by Money Gate Corporation, the successful responding parties sought costs. 2399029 Ontario Inc. and World Corporation Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs of $185,687.19 due to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, which Money Gate Corporation did not dispute in principle but argued were inflated.

The court reduced the claimed amount due to unnecessary work and fixed costs at $160,000 on a substantial indemnity scale.

Curah Capital Corporation was awarded its requested $12,024 on a partial indemnity scale.

In a receivership proceeding, a non-party, Money Gate Corporation (MGC), brought a motion seeking a distribution of $1,159,517.66 from the proceeds of the sale of a property, claiming to be the assignee of a second mortgage.

The motion was opposed by the property owner and the holder of subsequent charges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that MGC failed to prove it used its own funds or funds raised from private investors to purchase the assignment.

Furthermore, MGC's failure to register the transfer under the Land Titles Act meant it did not have priority over subsequent registered charges.

Following a decision declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant and staying his underlying civil claims as an abuse of process, the court determined the scale and quantum of costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to both groups of applicants for both the applications and the underlying civil actions, citing the respondent's extreme, baseless claims and his well-funded, obsessive litigation campaign.

Costs were fixed at $53,175.37 for the Flores applicants and $195,970.46 for the JFCY applicants.

The applicants, including a legal clinic and family friends, brought applications under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

The respondent had engaged in years of relentless litigation across multiple jurisdictions following his teenage daughter's decision to withdraw from his custody, repeatedly alleging abduction, fraud, and conspiracy against anyone involved.

The court found that the respondent persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted them in a vexatious manner, continually attempting to re-litigate issues already decided against him.

The applications were granted, the respondent was declared a vexatious litigant, and he was prohibited from instituting or continuing related proceedings without leave of the court.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 3, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed in the amount of $2,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Koehnen.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, the moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the Mintz Family Group and $7,500 to SRTS LLP.

A trial was ordered within a receivership application to determine the ownership of three corporations that held interests in real property.

The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the corporations, while the principal of the Laila Group of Companies claimed the corporations were subsidiaries of her company, World Corp. The court found both parties lacked credibility and had fabricated documents.

Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff was the legal owner of one corporation but held it on a resulting trust for World Corp., and that World Corp. was the legal and beneficial owner of the other two corporations.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,050.08.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 7.06(2) to substitute the plaintiff's litigation guardian, alleging the plaintiff's mother was not acting in her best interests.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants manipulated the mentally ill plaintiff into selling her property significantly below market value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the defendants' claims and characterizing the motion as an improper tactical manoeuvre to disrupt the litigation.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 30, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $4,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim) brought an urgent motion for interim injunctive relief to stop the plaintiffs and their principals from engaging in a relentless campaign of online harassment and defamation via Instagram.

The dispute originated from a failed transaction involving luxury handbags and watches, which previously led to ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders against the defendants.

The court found that the principals of the plaintiff corporation had posted highly defamatory statements, threats, and images obtained from the execution of the court orders.

Applying the stringent test for defamation injunctions, the court granted the requested relief, ordering the removal of the posts and restraining further contact and publication.

The receiver of assets in receivership proceedings moved to determine whether an appeal brought by Canada Investment Corporation (CIC) from an order of Penny J. was as of right or required leave under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The order had directed that proceeds from the sale of the Caldwell property, otherwise payable to CIC, be paid to the Stanbarr Claimants based on findings in a prior action that CIC was indebted to them.

The motions judge held that the appeal was as of right under section 193(c) of the BIA because the order resulted in a loss to CIC by directing payment of funds otherwise due to it to third parties.

The receiver's motion was dismissed.

In a receivership proceeding, the Receiver conducted a court-ordered claims process to determine entitlement to surplus proceeds from the sale of a property.

The Stanbarr Claimants sought the funds based on a prior judicial finding that the respondent, Canada Investment Corporation, had improperly inflated a mortgage payout statement.

The respondent opposed the Receiver's recommendation to pay the funds to the claimants, arguing the prior judicial finding was not final.

The court upheld the Receiver's recommendation, finding the prior decision was res judicata, and ordered the funds paid to the claimants.

A lawyer appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for malicious prosecution and breach of contract against her.

The trial judge found that the lawyer had initiated criminal proceedings against an unlicensed paralegal by making misleading complaints to police regarding missing client files.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the lawyer initiated the prosecution, as the police exercised independent discretion in their investigation.

The court also found errors in the trial judge's application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and in taking judicial notice regarding mitigation of damages.

The plaintiff law clerk sued the defendant lawyer for breach of a business agreement and malicious prosecution.

The defendant had falsely reported to the police that the plaintiff stole client files and forged letterhead, leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court found the defendant's evidence completely lacking in credibility, concluding she fabricated evidence, withheld exculpatory information from the police, and acted with malice.

The plaintiff was awarded $7,500 for breach of contract, $50,000 for malicious prosecution, and $25,000 in punitive damages.

The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction without notice against the defendants, alleging a fraudulent scheme involving the illegal dumping of industrial waste on their property.

The motion judge declined to grant the injunction without notice, citing delay and lack of direct evidence of asset dissipation.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal this decision to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that in cases of fraud, the risk of dissipation can be inferred from the circumstances of the fraud itself.

The court granted the Mareva injunction without notice against the remaining defendants, emphasizing the importance of this remedy in protecting victims of serious fraud.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the real estate registrations of a broker and her brokerage based on past conduct involving a complex business relationship with a foreign investor.

An arbitrator had previously found the broker breached her fiduciary duties in two real estate transactions and acted without authorization in others.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the broker's conduct in those specific transactions breached the Code of Ethics and her fiduciary duties, her otherwise unblemished 33-year career and strong client references indicated revocation was not warranted.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to revoke the registrations, but imposed strict conditions for ten years to prevent similar conflicts of interest.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for leave to commence a derivative action under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motions judge found the motion was statute-barred because it was brought after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge correctly applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the CIBC trilogy, which established that a nunc pro tunc order is not available when a motion for leave is filed after the limitation period has expired.

The plaintiff, a former officer and director of the defendant mining company, sued for wrongful dismissal seeking over $2.3 million under a 2008 Management Consulting Agreement.

The defendant argued the agreement was unenforceable due to the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty in its negotiation and that, in any event, the plaintiff was terminated for just cause.

The court found the 2008 agreement was the product of a flawed process and contained unfair terms, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff's subsequent conduct, including installing hidden cameras, issuing unauthorized press releases, and trading shares during blackout periods, provided just cause for termination.

The action was dismissed.