Michael Katzman

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against multiple defendants, including Nova Diamonds Inc. and Toronto Reserve Gold Inc., alleging they received proceeds from a fraudulent mortgage.

The moving defendants sought to set aside the injunction, arguing the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose that it had not conducted a tracing analysis to confirm the funds received by the moving defendants were actually the fraudulent proceeds, and that it had no evidence of a risk of dissipation.

The court set aside the Mareva injunction and subsequent non-dissipation orders against the moving defendants due to the plaintiff's material non-disclosure.

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully proved a construction lien and defeated the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined the costs and interest payable.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $225,504.45, while the defendants argued for $85,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $175,000 in substantial indemnity costs, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct, misleading evidence, and failure to accept multiple generous offers to settle.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 25%.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant homeowners for unpaid work and extras on a residential renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and performed defective work.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully repudiated the contract without justification, as the alleged deficiencies did not meet the high threshold required for termination.

The plaintiff was awarded $19,113.80 for the balance of the contract price and approved extras, less credits for unfinished work, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a construction lien action brought a motion for leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Act to amend his pleadings, discovery undertaking answers, and Scott Schedules to include claims for two additional extras and correct accounting errors.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments withdrew admissions and introduced statute-barred claims.

The Master found the original pleadings were not admissions under Rule 51.05 and the amendments merely clarified existing claims rather than introducing new causes of action.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, the Master granted leave for all requested amendments.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) regarding a jointly purchased investment property.

The applicants argued that the motion had already been settled via email correspondence between counsel.

The court found that the email exchange constituted a binding settlement agreement to consent to the CPL order while reserving costs.

Alternatively, the court held that a CPL was justified on the merits, as there was a triable issue regarding the parties' respective interests in the property.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff, an 81-year-old widow, brought a motion to continue and expand a Mareva injunction and obtain further Norwich orders against her deceased husband's former bookkeeper, who allegedly misappropriated funds.

The court continued the existing Mareva injunction freezing $185,000 related to the sale of a restaurant property, finding a strong prima facie case.

However, the court dismissed the request to expand the injunction to cover the sale of a farm property due to conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the request for further Norwich orders, noting the litigation was no longer at the pre-action stage, and ruled that much of the plaintiff's evidence, provided via a law clerk's affidavit, was inadmissible hearsay.

The applicant first mortgagee sought a declaration validating a power of sale agreement and an order expunging cautions and subsequent encumbrances registered by the respondent mortgagor and second mortgagee.

The respondents brought a cross-application seeking an injunction to restrain the sale and an extension of time to redeem the mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to pre-emptively expunge the registrations or declare the sale valid before closing.

The court also dismissed the cross-application, holding that the mortgagor's right to redeem was extinguished upon the mortgagee entering into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale, and the mortgagor had not tendered the arrears or proven bad faith.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 31.05.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to continue the examination for discovery of the defendant, his former lawyer, beyond the seven-hour limit.

The underlying action involved allegations of solicitor negligence regarding an improvident settlement of an accident benefits claim.

The court considered the complexity of the issues, the amount in dispute, and the interests of justice, concluding that an additional 2.5 hours of examination was warranted.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs.