Maureen M. Ward

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.

The Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank Limited (SIB) appealed the dismissal of their negligence claim against The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank).

SIB was a vehicle for a massive Ponzi scheme.

The Liquidators claimed TD Bank was negligent in providing correspondent banking services by failing to detect and protect SIB from insider abuse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to monitor SIB for internal fraud, as this fell outside the scope of TD Bank's undertaking as a correspondent bank.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's alternative finding that even if a duty existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, and that the trial judge's procedural rulings regarding witness recall were fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank (SIB) and a group of investors brought actions against TD Bank, SIB's primary U.S. dollar correspondent bank, for knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

The plaintiffs alleged that TD Bank should have detected and prevented the massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by SIB's owner, Allen Stanford.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the actions, finding that TD Bank had no actual knowledge of the fraud and was not reckless or wilfully blind.

The court also held that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to protect its customer from insider abuse, and even if it did, it met the standard of care of a reasonable banker during the relevant period.

The applicants, engaged in combating government corruption in Malaysia, sought a Norwich Pharmacal order to compel financial institutions to produce confidential information about a Canadian real estate group.

The applicants suspected the group was funded by proceeds of foreign corruption and contemplated a private criminal prosecution for money laundering and receipt of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants lacked reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence had been committed, and that it would be inappropriate to use the court's inherent civil jurisdiction to bypass the careful balance struck by Parliament in the Criminal Code for criminal investigations and private prosecutions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion without notice for a Norwich Pharmacal order against several financial institutions and an accounting firm.

They sought financial information regarding a foreign official and related entities to determine whether to commence private criminal prosecutions for alleged money laundering.

The court adjourned the motion, holding that the targets of the investigation had a privacy interest in the records and must be given notice under the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there was no risk of evidence destruction that would justify proceeding without notice.

Following dismissal of the defendant bank’s summary judgment motion asserting a limitations defence, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $635,000.

The action arises from a massive Ponzi scheme involving certificates of deposit issued by an offshore bank, with the plaintiffs acting as joint liquidators pursuing damages of USD $5.5 billion against the defendant bank as correspondent banker.

The court held that although the plaintiffs were successful in resisting the motion, their claimed costs were excessive and far outside the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party for a two‑day summary judgment motion.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed a fair and reasonable costs award of $120,000 all‑inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The award was made without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ ability to seek additional costs related to the motion at trial where the limitations issue remains live.

The defendant bank brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a $5.5 billion negligence and knowing assistance claim arising from an international Ponzi scheme, arguing the action was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The claim was brought by joint liquidators of an offshore bank alleging the defendant bank failed to exercise appropriate due diligence and facilitated the scheme by continuing correspondent banking services.

The court held that the discoverability of the claim before the critical limitation date involved complex factual inquiries regarding what the liquidators’ predecessors knew or ought to have known about the bank’s role in the fraud.

Given the extensive evidence, overlapping merits issues, and disputed factual questions about knowledge and investigation during the liquidation process, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.