No one

The plaintiff lawyer brought an urgent motion for an interim order prohibiting his landlord from evicting him from his commercial office space at the end of his lease term.

Although the parties had exchanged emails agreeing to a one-year lease extension, the plaintiff declined to rely on that agreement, seeking instead to stay for only four months due to a breakdown in the relationship.

The court dismissed the request for interim relief, finding that without asserting the extended lease, the plaintiff had no legal basis to remain in the premises and therefore failed to establish a serious issue to be tried.

The applicant sought an order without notice to dispense with service of a notice of application on 79 registered homeowners.

The underlying application sought to remove a restrictive covenant from two lots to allow for a new road.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that service was impractical under rule 16.04(1) based merely on cost and potential delay.

The court dismissed the request to dispense with service but ordered substituted service by leaving copies at the homes and sending them by regular mail.

The plaintiff sought to enforce an unpaid oppression judgment against the defendant Daniel Xiao by bringing a fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy action against him, his former wife, and her parents.

The court found that the defendants fraudulently conveyed a Toronto property to the parents and subsequently used the proceeds and other funds to purchase a Vancouver property in the wife's name to defeat the plaintiff's claims.

The court rejected the defendants' laches defence, finding no acquiescence or irredeemable prejudice despite a lengthy delay.

The court allowed the tracing of funds and awarded judgments of $60,000 against the parents and $175,000 against the former wife.

The applicants brought a motion for approval of a settlement reached on behalf of a minor who was injured in a dog attack.

The proposed settlement included damages, interest, and costs totaling $65,135.82.

The court adjourned the motion, finding that additional evidence was required regarding the minor's psychological injuries, future surgical needs, apportionment of travel expenses, liability compromise, and the proposed investment of the settlement funds outside of the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs, including two parties under disability represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, brought a motion for court approval of a $1,000,000 global settlement resolving tort and statutory accident benefit claims arising from five motor vehicle collisions.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, the risks of proceeding to trial, and the proposed allocation of funds, including legal fees.

Finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the parties under disability, the court approved the settlement.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion seeking a Mareva injunction and related relief against several defendants alleged to have participated in an international fraud scheme involving the sale of semiconductor materials.

The evidence suggested the plaintiff lost $840,000 after being induced to transfer funds through a fraudulent distribution arrangement, and that similar schemes had defrauded numerous victims in the United States.

The court found strong circumstantial evidence linking the primary individual defendant to the fraud and determined that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case.

Evidence of financial transfers among the defendants and recent property dispositions supported a risk of asset dissipation.

The court concluded the prerequisites for Mareva relief were satisfied and granted the injunction.