3 total
The court dismissed a motion for a certificate of pending litigation in a fraudulent conveyance action.
The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a matrimonial home allegedly transferred by one defendant to his spouse in a fraudulent conveyance scheme.
The plaintiffs' claims as creditors were based solely on damages sought in a separate underlying action against the defendant and others.
The court applied the three-part test from Grefford v. Fielding and dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a high probability of success in the underlying action and that the balance of convenience favoured denying the CPL, particularly given that the current property owner was a stranger to the underlying dispute.
Interim injunction granted to preserve disputed steel coils due to defendants' egregious fraudulent concealment.
The plaintiffs, Empire Steel Inc. and Steelserve Corp., brought a motion to extend a preservation order and, in the alternative, for an injunction to prevent the defendants, Dass Metal Products & Dass Steel Service Centre et al., from disposing of 102 steel coils.
The plaintiffs alleged fraud and egregious deception by the defendants, who had unilaterally claimed the coils were damaged, refused payment, and allegedly sold them for scrap, while obstructing previous inspection orders.
The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of continued fraudulent conduct, granting the injunction to preserve the coils and ordering their transport to the plaintiffs' facility, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Motion for further and better affidavit of documents dismissed; contested emails protected by privilege.
The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for a further and better Affidavit of Documents, challenging the defendant's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over certain internal emails.
The plaintiff had previously received an anonymous package of the defendant's documents, which she reviewed before returning.
The court reviewed the contested documents and found that they were all protected by either solicitor-client privilege, as part of the continuum of legal advice, or litigation privilege, having been created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation following the plaintiff's termination.
The motion was dismissed, and the documents were not ordered to be produced.
