Natai Shelsen

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the court-appointed Monitor sought a Mareva injunction against a former executive, his company, and his spouse.

The Monitor alleged that the executive had misappropriated millions of dollars from the insolvent companies for personal use, including purchasing a yacht, private jet fractional interests, and real estate, while failing to remit significant taxes.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the executive and his company, and inferred a real risk of asset dissipation given their ties to St. Lucia.

An uncapped Mareva injunction was granted against them.

However, the court found insufficient evidence of actual knowledge to establish a strong prima facie case of knowing assistance or receipt against the spouse, and instead ordered her to provide a statement of worldwide assets.

The applicant, Original Traders Energy Ltd. (OTE Group), brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against former executives, Glenn Page and Mandy Cox, and their corporate entity, 2658658 Ontario Inc., to freeze a yacht allegedly purchased with OTE funds through fraudulent means.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of asset dissipation given the yacht's movement after notice, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicant.

The requirement for an undertaking as to damages was dispensed with due to the applicant's insolvency and the strength of their case.

The order included directing the respondents to facilitate the yacht's return to Florida.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The appellant's appeal from an order striking out pleadings was dismissed.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent, finding that the appellant's conduct, including misogynistic attacks and continuing allegations of fraud, was reprehensible and warranted such an award, consistent with the motion judge's original costs order.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that largely struck out his pleadings for fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and negligent infliction of mental distress, and transferred his unjust enrichment claim to Family Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions that the claims lacked reasonable cause of action, that no duty of care existed for negligent infliction of mental distress, and that the unjust enrichment claim was properly transferred.

The costs award on a substantial indemnity basis was also upheld.