Samuel Eng

The applicant brought a motion for increased temporary parenting time, including overnights, with the parties' two children.

The respondent opposed overnight visits for the younger child, citing the applicant's living arrangements, and relied on a separation agreement that restricted the applicant's parenting time.

The court found the separation agreement was likely signed under duress and disregarded its parenting provisions under s. 56(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court ordered a step-up parenting schedule for the younger child, leading to alternate weekend overnights, and restored the older child's previous overnight schedule, finding it in the children's best interests to maximize contact with the applicant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the Lin Defendants for failing to comply with previous court orders, including a Mareva injunction, which required them to provide affidavits of assets, submit to examinations under oath, and provide a monthly accounting.

The Lin Defendants failed to attend the examinations, failed to provide the required information, and could not be located.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court issued a declaration of breach, struck the Lin Defendants' pleadings, froze their assets without allowance for business expenses, and set a timetable for the plaintiffs to move for default judgment.

This endorsement follows a Mareva injunction order, addressing outstanding issues of asset disclosure, living and business operating expenses, and limitations to the injunction.

The court ordered the Lin Defendants to attend examinations on their assets within two weeks, validated service on them as of November 15, 2022, and directed them to file a Statement of Defence within 30 days.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the parties were ordered to re-attend to finalize limitations and expenses.

The court also addressed the potential sale of two Bentley vehicles held overseas.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Mareva injunction motion brought by the Plaintiffs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants due to their reprehensible conduct, including the filing of a false affidavit by one defendant, and the overall lack of merit in the defence presented by both groups of defendants, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The court emphasized the complexity of the case, the Plaintiffs' complete success, and the reasonable foreseeability of a significant costs order.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The parties returned to court to address alleged deficiencies in the defendants' asset disclosure affidavits, requests for living and business operating expenses, and potential limits on the injunction.

The court found the defendants' affidavits deficient and ordered further and better affidavits with supporting documentation.

The court also granted interim interim orders allowing specific monthly amounts for living and business operating expenses, but found it premature to limit the scope of the Mareva injunction until complete asset information was provided.

The plaintiffs, Li Yang (Canada) Holdings Co. Ltd. and Daniel Executive (Canada) Holdings Corp., sought a Mareva injunction against multiple defendants involved in an alleged multi-layered fraud scheme concerning luxury vehicle exports.

The court found a strong prima facie case for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy against the Lin Defendants (LYSR Management Ltd., 2708042 Ontario Inc., 2786584 Ontario Inc., Rina Shinchi, Yangguang Lin) and the Zheng Defendants (Wei Zheng, Location Way Inc.).

The court also found a real risk of asset dissipation, noting the defendants' fraudulent conduct and attempts to mislead.

The motion was dismissed against Zi Mu Li and Renxiangyu Zhang due to insufficient evidence.

The Mareva injunction was granted against the remaining defendants to prevent asset dissipation.

The applicant wife sought an order striking the respondent husband's pleadings or compelling disclosure and an expert meeting.

The respondent husband sought to vary a spousal support order and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the wife's request to strike pleadings and her expert meeting request, but ordered reciprocal questioning with experts present.

The husband's motion to vary spousal support was dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or compelling evidence to warrant a variation of the temporary order.

The matrimonial home sale was resolved by consent.

The court declined to award costs to the wife, finding her rejection of expert collaboration unreasonable.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Czutrin J. dated January 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,500.