Matthew Thomson

The court addressed a motion to interpret an order made on September 9, 2025, regarding the preservation of funds in trust accounts.

The plaintiff sought clarification on whether the order required the defendants to deposit additional funds into trust or merely maintain funds already held in trust.

The court also addressed whether the order applied to all defendants or only the Mayfield defendants.

The court held that the order requires maintenance of funds already in trust, not the deposit of new funds, and that the order applies only to the Mayfield defendants, not the Gandhi defendants.

The court considered a motion by Century 21 Harvest Realty Ltd. and Samuel Kin Yip Chang for security for costs against 5000917 Ontario Inc. in a commercial real estate dispute.

The court reviewed the applicable legal principles under Rule 56.01, including the justness of ordering security, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the merits of the claims.

The court found that 5000917 Ontario Inc. did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and that its claims did not have a clear chance of success on the record.

The court ordered security for costs in the amount of $30,000, to be paid in two installments, and reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge.

The plaintiff brought a motion for interlocutory and permanent injunctions against a former employee.

On consent of the parties, the court ordered the defendant to refrain from soliciting the plaintiff's clients, offering employment to its staff, and using or distributing confidential information.

The defendant was also ordered to return company property, produce relevant work-related records, and pay costs of $10,000.

The plaintiff sought costs of $20,000 on a substantial indemnity basis against the defendant Lynch following a successful motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The defendant argued costs should be in the cause or fixed at $5,000.

The court found the plaintiff was successful and the motion should have been resolved on consent, but reduced the requested amount for proportionality, fixing costs at $14,000 payable by the defendant Lynch.

This motion arose from a partnership dispute concerning the joint purchase of a pre-build home.

The plaintiff sought to either extend a two-year undertaking preventing the defendant, who held title, from selling or encumbering the property, or, in the alternative, an order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The court denied the request to vary the consent order extending the undertaking, finding no mutual intent for an extension.

However, the court granted the CPL, determining that the plaintiff had established a triable issue regarding their interest in the land, and that a CPL was warranted despite the availability of a damages claim, given the property was the subject matter of the claim and to prevent potential dissipation of assets.