Michael John Campbell

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants for allegedly breaching a Mareva injunction by dissipating assets and failing to disclose bank accounts.

The defendants moved to strike the contempt motion for lack of particulars and improper service.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their notice of motion and to file additional affidavits based on evidence obtained during cross-examinations and from third-party banks.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding they had fair notice of the allegations.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to amend the notice of motion and file additional affidavits, as the new evidence was relevant and there was no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated July 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ appeal from a judgment granting partial summary judgment and continuing a Mareva injunction in favour of the respondents.

The appellants, led by Navdeep Singh Boparai, had persuaded the respondents to invest over $1 million in various schemes, which the motion judge found to be fraudulent.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis, including her findings of fraudulent misrepresentation, her application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and her decision to continue the Mareva injunction.

The appeal was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction (freezing order) against the defendants' assets, alleging that the defendants received fraudulent conveyances from Navdeep Boparai, who had been found liable for defrauding the plaintiffs of approximately $1.6 million.

The defendants argued that the statement of claim should be struck as lacking particulars.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance, a serious risk of asset dissipation, and irreparable harm.

The court rejected the defendants' argument regarding particulars, finding the pleadings sufficient.

Costs of $50,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellants sought orders under sections 134 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998, alleging various incidents and an ongoing failure by the respondents to reasonably respond to inquiries.

The appeal court was asked to overturn findings of fact made by the application judge.

The court found that all of the application judge's findings were reasonably open on the record and, therefore, dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against the condominium corporation and its board of directors seeking an oppression remedy and compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The applicants alleged the board acted oppressively by ignoring communications, mishandling an elevator malfunction, and copying the applicants' employers on a warning letter regarding harassment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board acted reasonably and in good faith in response to the applicants' excessive communications.

The court also held that several of the applicants' claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that defamation claims could not be brought via application.

The appellants appealed a summary dismissal of their claim that the respondent condominium corporation wrongfully registered liens against their units for unpaid common expenses.

The motion judge dismissed the wrongful registration claim but ordered a trial on the respondent's claim for legal fees related to the liens.

The appellants argued the dismissal might foreclose their ability to contest the legal fees at trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to clarify the order, ensuring the appellants can argue both entitlement and amount of the legal fees at trial.

The motion judge's costs order was set aside and reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that a natural gas supply contract entered into by its former manager was void.

The application judge found the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the appellant was aware of the facts supporting its claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that the limitation period began only upon a demand letter or that a new claim arose with each monthly invoice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment, arguing that minutes of settlement foreclosed the complaints that were before Tarion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the minutes of settlement did not foreclose the complaints.