Norman John Groot

The appellants, estate trustees of Dr. Zachariadis, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim to recover a $700,000 payment made by the deceased to his romantic partner, Ms. Giannopoulos, alleging breach of trust, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The motion judge found the payment was a valid gift and the action was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in denying an adjournment for further examinations, confirming the payment was a gift despite alleged suspicious circumstances, and agreeing that the action was statute-barred under the Trustee Act's strict limitation period, with the doctrine of fraudulent concealment not applying.

The appeal regarding costs was also dismissed, upholding the substantial indemnity award against the estate and trustees personally.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for a Mareva injunction.

The Plaintiff had brought a second Mareva injunction motion, which was largely resolved on an uncontested basis.

The parties disagreed on whether the resulting order was on consent and who should bear the costs.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Defendant sought costs against the Plaintiff, including personally against his counsel, alleging improper transfers of funds.

The court found the Defendant to be the successful party on the motion, though with mixed success, and awarded her $7,500.00 in partial indemnity costs from the Plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the Plaintiff's counsel personally, emphasizing the high threshold for such awards.

The court fixed costs for a successful motion to strike brought by the plaintiff.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs, but the court limited the award to partial indemnity, finding no conduct warranting enhanced costs.

Considering the motion's simplicity, discrete issues, and some duplication in counsel's work, the court awarded the amount the plaintiff was prepared to pay, $3,606.50, as reasonable partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs for a pre-discovery document production motion in a case-managed proceeding.

The defendant, who sought additional document production, was deemed the more successful party, though not entirely successful.

The plaintiff's unreasonable positions regarding document relevance and production obligations were found to have lengthened the motion.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments against a costs award based on the informal, letter-based process or the defendant's prior unpaid costs orders.

Partial indemnity costs of $1,000.00 were awarded to the defendant, with the possibility of set-off against any costs owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze the proceeds of a real estate sale scheduled to close the same day.

The court declined to proceed without notice, finding that the plaintiff had already threatened the defendant with the motion and had the ability to serve him.

The court recessed the motion until the afternoon to allow the plaintiff to provide notice to the defendant.

This is an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice finding the appellant in contempt of various court orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting that the appellant was clearly in contempt and failed to purge it despite numerous opportunities.

The appeal was dismissed, and the contempt sentence was ordered to run concurrently with any related criminal sentence.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 17, 2018.

The respondent was not in attendance when the appeal was scheduled to be heard.

The appellant's counsel requested that the matter be adjourned to be heard together with a related appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed that it was desirable for the two appeals to be heard together and adjourned the matter accordingly.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants for fraud.

The defendant Ablacksingh was found in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders related to providing an accounting and attending examinations in aid of execution.

This decision addresses the sentencing for contempt, punitive damages, and costs.

The court imposed a two-month conditional sentence on Ablacksingh, ordered him to take down misleading websites and photographs, and awarded $20,000 in punitive damages and $40,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

This decision addresses the appropriate penalty for Cosimo “Cosmo” Polidoro, who was found liable for six additional counts of civil contempt for his continuing failure to comply with court orders and undertakings in two separate actions involving fraudulent real estate transactions.

Polidoro had previously been found liable for eight counts of civil contempt and sentenced to incarceration.

The court also determined the plaintiffs' entitlement to and quantum of punitive damages for the frauds perpetrated by Polidoro.

The court found Polidoro's conduct to be egregious, involving repeated lies and evasion, and imposed a six-month custodial sentence, to be served concurrently with existing intermittent sentences.

Additionally, Polidoro was ordered to pay $25,000 in punitive damages to each set of plaintiffs (Boroni and Macaes) and $95,000 in costs to the Boroni Plaintiffs.

The applicant sought to review and set aside a security for costs order made by a motion judge.

The applicant's primary argument was that the motion judge erred in relying on his legal representation as evidence of ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the motion judge was entitled to reject the applicant's claims of impecuniosity given significant unpaid costs awards against him, his credibility concerns arising from findings of fraud and contempt, and his refusal to answer questions about the source of funds he has used to support himself despite millions of dollars having passed through his hands.

The appellant sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for a panel review of a security for costs order made by a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

The motion was filed outside the four-day service window required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge granted the extension of time, considering factors including the appellant's intention to seek review, the engagement of liberty of the subject, the non-frivolous nature of the underlying appeal, and the unpredictability of deference afforded to security for costs orders.

The motion was directed to be heard in writing by a panel rather than orally to prevent further delay.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the foreign corporate plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs conceded entitlement to security for costs, leaving only the quantum in dispute.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the merits of the claim, and the applicable tariff rates, ultimately ordering the plaintiffs to post $33,000 as security for costs up to and including mediation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to have the defendant found in contempt of court for failing to comply with multiple court orders, including orders to provide an accounting and attend judgment debtor examinations.

The defendant admitted to eight counts of civil contempt, including egregiously lying to the court about his father's death to avoid a court appearance.

The court found the defendant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced him to a 76-day intermittent custodial sentence, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was also ordered to pay $50,000 in costs.

The defendant, Steven Nowack, was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a judgment requiring an accounting of funds obtained through fraud and a subsequent order for document production.

Despite opportunities to purge his contempt, Nowack's efforts were deemed half-hearted and calculated.

The court reviewed sentencing principles, including coercion and deterrence, and considered aggravating factors such as a pattern of non-compliance and previous contempt convictions.

Finding that no lesser remedy would be effective, the court sentenced Nowack to 30 days incarceration and ordered a detailed accounting of specific financial transactions within 45 days of his release.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for partial summary judgment arising from an alleged fraudulent investment scheme involving a purported $900 million bond‑trading program.

The plaintiff had transferred $2 million to a company account controlled by the principal defendant, believing the funds would be used in a short‑term bond transaction, but the funds were diverted through various accounts and ultimately used to purchase personal assets including a luxury residence.

The defendants asserted the transaction was legitimate and that the funds had been used for the bond program, but produced no reliable documentation supporting the existence of the bonds or the investment structure.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the scheme was fraudulent and that the principal defendant had knowingly misappropriated the funds.

Partial summary judgment was granted for $2 million against the principal defendant and related companies, while claims against other parties were left for trial.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 30 and 31 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and additional production from the plaintiff in a complex civil action involving allegations of wrongful conduct relating to an investment bond valued in the millions of dollars.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought dismissal or a stay pending the defendants’ compliance with prior production and costs orders made by a master.

The court held that the motion raised issues more appropriately determined by a master, particularly in light of the earlier case management timetable and the fact that the master had contemplated the motion being brought before that forum.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to allow the defendants to bring it before a master on an expedited basis.

At a pre-hearing tele-conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend and revoke a liquor licence, the Board ordered mutual disclosure.

The Licensee was ordered to disclose its witness list and detailed evidence summaries, and both parties were ordered to complete any further disclosure ten days prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing tele-conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered the scheduling of hearing dates and set deadlines for the mutual disclosure of witness lists, witness statements, and other evidence.

A pre-hearing tele-conference was held regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent.

The Board ordered, on consent, that the hearing commence on May 6, 2010, and set deadlines for both the Registrar and the licensee to provide witness lists and complete disclosure ten days prior to the hearing.

Following a pre-hearing tele-conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board ordered the Licensee to disclose its witness list, detailed summaries of witness evidence, and will-say statements to the Registrar 10 days before the hearing.

The Registrar was also ordered to complete any further disclosure 10 days before the hearing.