Norman John Groot

The court considered costs following the Plaintiffs' discontinuance of their action against the Defendant Ase Deliri after a protracted procedural history.

The Defendant sought full indemnity costs, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs up to the date of a settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the Plaintiffs' conduct was not egregious enough, but granted partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, with a reduction for an unexplained disbursement.

The total costs awarded were $28,336.78.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Colin Patrick Murphy, finding that the motion judge erred by compelling Murphy to testify during his own civil contempt proceedings, in violation of section 11(c) of the Charter.

The compelled testimony was improperly used to support a finding of contempt and to justify a sentence of incarceration.

The Court held that section 11(c) applies to civil contempt proceedings, including sentencing, and prohibits testimonial compulsion once contempt is alleged.

The finding of contempt for failing to produce deleted data and the sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new sentencing hearing on the admitted acts of contempt.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against Gonzalo Raul Aguiar Gadea (now his Estate) and A.D. Group of Companies Inc., alleging significant and prolonged fraud related to investments in the cannabis industry in Uruguay.

The defendants had failed to file proper defences and comply with previous court orders, including a worldwide Mareva injunction and asset declarations.

The court granted partial default judgment against the Estate of Aguiar and A.D. Group for misappropriated funds, finding a strong prima facie case of civil fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The Mareva injunction was continued against the Estate and other defendants, as further claims and tracing of funds remained outstanding.

The appellant, Brian Kumar, sought a review of a single judge's order requiring him to post $5,000 security for costs before proceeding with his motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against Kumar, whose statement of defence was struck due to non-compliance with court orders.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed Kumar's review motion, affirming the original order for security for costs due to his consistent pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

This was a fraudulent conveyance action concerning the transfer of a property from Punit Lala and Pawan Lala to Pawan Lala and Rani Lala.

The transfer occurred after Punit Lala was served with a motion for summary judgment in a fraud action by the applicant, Infolink Technologies Corp. The court found that Punit Lala conveyed the property with the intent to defeat Infolink's ability to collect on a potential judgment, and that the other defendants (Pawan, Rani, and Kishore Lala) either knew about this intent or were wilfully blind to it.

The court also determined that Rani and Pawan Lala were not bona fide purchasers for value, as they did not act in good faith and the property was not transferred at fair market value.

The transfer was declared void as against Infolink, allowing them to execute against Punit Lala's ¼ interest in the property.

Infolink's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

Melissa Hart brought a motion under rr. 59.06(2)(a) and 61.16(6.1) seeking to withdraw a previous Court of Appeal decision and requesting a rehearing of the appeal, alleging the court overlooked her evidence.

The motion was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because Ms. Hart had been declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

This order prohibited her from commencing or continuing any proceedings in any court without leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, which she had not obtained.

The court also directed staff not to accept any further filings from Ms. Hart without such leave.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for production orders and examination of the defendants in aid of an existing Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The only contentious issue was a request to order a non-party exchange to provide information regarding the defendants' assets.

The court granted the order, finding it necessary in aid of execution of the Mareva injunction, and rejected the defendants' argument that the request was an improper attempt to gather evidence for a contempt motion.

The plaintiff, 2770095 Ontario Inc., a special purpose vehicle incorporated one day before the assignment, brought an action to recover over $1 million in alleged missing funds from payment processing, assigned from Affinitas Medios de Pago S.A.P.I de C.V. The defendants, Maxwell Dean Morgan and Tricia Edwards, moved to dismiss the action, arguing the assignment was invalid due to champerty and maintenance.

The court found that the assignment of tort claims was champertous, as the plaintiff had no pre-existing commercial or financial interest in the litigation and was created solely to pursue the claim for profit.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process and set aside all interim and interlocutory orders, including Mareva injunctions and certificates of pending litigation.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to continue a Mareva injunction, obtain an Anton Piller order, and secure ancillary relief against the Defendants, who are alleged to have engaged in a significant fraud involving over US$27 million.

The Defendants had failed to comply with previous court orders for disclosure of assets and funds.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of evidence destruction or dissipation.

Consequently, the court granted the Anton Piller order for search and preservation of documents and electronic evidence at the Defendants' property, continued the Mareva injunction, and ordered various ancillary relief, including registering the injunction on property title, passport surrender for one defendant, and further financial disclosure.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Plaintiff successfully sought to stay a related fraudulent conveyance action.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the Defendant's position was weak and that a reasonable offer to settle was made.

The Defendant sought to defer costs or have them dismissed.

The court declined to defer costs, finding the Plaintiff successful on the motion.

It awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,000.00 to the Plaintiff, determining that while the Plaintiff's offer was reasonable, it did not trigger Rule 49 consequences, and the Defendant's conduct, though based on a tenuous argument, was not abusive or egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity.

The plaintiff commenced a main action to recover monies from the defendant, a former romantic partner.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced a second action alleging the defendant fraudulently conveyed funds to her counsel.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the second action, arguing it was res judicata, an abuse of process, or should be dismissed because another proceeding was pending.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim was not res judicata as no final order had been made, and it was not an abuse of process.

However, to prevent the risk of double recovery, the court ordered the fraudulent conveyance action stayed pending the outcome of the main action.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that dismissed their Rule 59.06 motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and imposed a leave requirement for any further motions in the underlying action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, concluding that the Rule 59.06 motion was a third attempt to re-litigate issues already decided, which constituted vexatious conduct and an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for a Norwich order against the respondent bank.

The applicant alleged it was the victim of a fraudulent scheme and had transferred USD $5,000,000 to an account held at the respondent bank.

The court granted the Norwich order, finding that the applicant had a bona fide claim, the bank was the only practicable source of information to trace the funds, and the interests of justice favoured disclosure.

A 90-day non-disclosure order was also granted to prevent the dissipation of funds.

This is an appeal concerning the application of limitation periods to tort claims, including sexual assault, against a police officer.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's motions to strike and for summary judgment, finding that the sexual assault allegations triggered s. 16(1)(h) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that s. 16(1.3) extended this to related torts due to the officer's position of trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision regarding the application of s. 16(1.3) to claims against the perpetrator and related torts, but set aside the declaration that no limitation period applied to all claims, stating this ultimate determination should be left to the trial judge.

The appeal regarding costs was dismissed, affirming the motion judge's award.

This endorsement concerns the continuation of a motion by the plaintiffs to extend a Mareva Injunction and a cross-motion by certain defendants to dissolve it.

Due to the recent service of voluminous motion material, the plaintiffs requested an adjournment to review the material and conduct cross-examinations.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the adjournment, extending the existing injunction.

All matters were adjourned to a later date for a virtual hearing.

The court also noted a separate forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, which is not intended to affect assets subject to civil judgment for class members.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions related to a Mareva injunction in a class proceeding concerning the 'Freedom Convoy' funds.

The court extended the Mareva injunction with modifications, adjourned motions to dissolve the injunction and amend the statement of claim, and granted a Toronto Dominion Bank interpleader motion to transfer funds to an escrow agent.

The decision also clarified the interplay between the civil Mareva injunction and criminal restraint orders, and addressed issues concerning cryptocurrency seized by police and funds held by a third-party fundraising platform, GiveSendGo LLC.

The court emphasized the importance of keeping separate proceedings distinct while managing related matters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction previously granted against organizers and funders of the Freedom Convoy.

The injunction aimed to restrain the dissipation of assets for potential civil liability to Ottawa residents and businesses.

The court granted a temporary extension and modification of the injunction by consent, allowing certain funds to be transferred to an escrow agent, and adjourned the motion for a further hearing.

The decision emphasized the civil nature of the proceeding, separate from criminal processes.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for preservation and Norwich Orders after $2.55 million was fraudulently transferred from its bank account to accounts held by the defendants.

The plaintiff sought to trace and preserve the funds, and required identity information from the banks to proceed with a Mareva injunction.

The court found clear evidence of a scheme to defraud the plaintiff and granted the requested orders.

The plaintiff in a fraud recovery action requested a case conference after the self-represented defendant failed to comply with a timetable for a summary judgment motion.

The defendant produced medical evidence that he was undergoing chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer and requested an adjournment of cross-examinations.

The court adjourned the summary judgment motion to a peremptory date and established a new timetable on consent to accommodate the defendant's medical treatment while ensuring the motion proceeds before his scheduled criminal sentencing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a fraud recovery case following the defendants' guilty pleas in a related criminal matter.

The defendant failed to attend a scheduled case conference to establish a timetable for the motion.

The court proceeded in the defendant's absence and established a timetable for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums leading up to the summary judgment motion hearing.