Lia Boritz

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a fraudulent conveyance action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale against the defendants and the intervenor.

The court noted the defendants' delay tactics, unfounded allegations of fraud, and lack of credibility.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $175,000 against the defendants and $30,000 against the intervenor, finding the amounts reasonable given the complexity introduced by the defendants' failed defenses.

Following a trial regarding reciprocal easements and commercial redevelopment, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs achieved divided success, obtaining some but not all of the declaratory relief sought and failing to obtain a permanent injunction.

The court declined to make a distributive costs order, instead reducing the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs by 50% to reflect their divided success and over-staffing, awarding them $638,804.86 against the Market Village defendants.

The Kennedy defendants were awarded $70,000 in partial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff misrepresented the zoning of the property and breached the agreement by refusing to grant further extensions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the clear 'entire agreement' and 'as is' clauses in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and the defendant's own failure to properly investigate the zoning.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, finding she had reasonably mitigated her damages by reselling the property.

The plaintiffs and defendants own contiguous commercial retail centres and share reciprocal easements for access and parking.

The defendants proposed a major redevelopment that would expand their building footprint onto lands subject to the plaintiffs' easement, eliminating hundreds of surface parking spaces.

The plaintiffs sought declarations and an injunction to prevent the development.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proposed development would substantially interfere with the plaintiffs' easement rights and overburden the remaining shared parking.

The court granted specific declarations confirming the breach of the easements but declined to issue a permanent injunction, finding it unnecessary given existing structural safeguards.

The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered following a trial.

The defendants argued that the delay was due to the need for a Ministry of Natural Resources work permit and a pending appeal.

The court found that while the defendants improperly delayed applying for the permit while seeking a stay, they were justified in waiting for the permit before commencing demolition.

The court adjourned the contempt motion to allow time for the permit to be issued and the work to be completed, with leave to return if further delays occur.

The defendants were successful on a motion for security for costs against the foreign corporate plaintiff and sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $18,000.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced amount of $10,000, claiming divided success and excessive time spent.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were entirely successful and the delegation of work between junior and senior counsel was appropriate for the complex motion.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims as an abuse of process, arguing they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in a New York judgment against one of the defendants.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the undefended counterclaim of the defendant subject to the New York judgment, as it was res judicata.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the counterclaim by the affiliated corporate defendant, finding that granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings at trial, as the issues in the counterclaim were intertwined with the main action against that defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the non-resident plaintiff, CAMS Atlas, LLC.

The plaintiff had obtained a New York default judgment against one of the defendants, Water Exchange, Inc., which was recognized in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued it would be unjust to order security for costs, alleging a complex web of interrelationships among the defendants that should make them all liable for the judgment.

The court declined to pierce the corporate veil at this preliminary stage, finding it would be premature and wrong in law.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $75,000 as security for costs.