N. Buhary

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and Certificate of Pending Litigation against the defendants, alleging fraudulent and deficient electrical work during a home renovation and claiming the defendants were dissipating assets to avoid judgment.

On the motion to continue the injunction, the court dissolved the orders, finding the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure regarding available insurance and the extent of deficiencies.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or a serious risk of asset dissipation, as the evidence of fraud and intent to hide assets was largely speculative and contradicted by the defendants' evidence.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for failure to answer undertakings and comply with a previous court order.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, had answered some but not all of the undertakings, citing difficulties and costs in obtaining medical and other records.

The Master declined to dismiss the action but ordered the plaintiff to answer the sixteen outstanding undertakings within 30 days, providing specific directions for requesting records.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendant in the cause.

The plaintiff bank sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue an action against a trustee in bankruptcy for damages arising from an unpaid overdraft.

The bank alleged the trustee breached its duty of care by failing to provide notice of the debtor's proposal, sale of assets, and bankruptcy.

The court found that the bank's claim was not frivolous or vexatious and disclosed a factual foundation, particularly regarding the trustee's failure to notify the bank of the bankruptcy when the debtor's accounts held a positive balance.

Leave to continue the action was granted.