Onofrio Ferlisi

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and to find the defendants in civil contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior order for documentary production.

The court granted the extension of time on consent.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no evidence that the defendants acted in defiance of the order, as they had produced documents and provided reasons for not producing others.

The court emphasized that civil contempt is a remedy of last resort and other adequate remedies were available to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs (Lenders) brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendants (a car dealership, a related corporation, and its controlling mind).

The Lenders alleged a massive fraud scheme where the dealership obtained auto loans from them under false pretenses, as no automobiles were actually sold or secured.

The motion focused on 16 specific fraudulent transactions, seeking judgment in contract and fraud, and to pierce the corporate veil to hold the controlling mind personally liable.

The court found overwhelming evidence of fraud and breach of contract by the Dealer and its controlling mind, who failed to provide any substantive defense.

The court granted partial summary judgment, piercing the corporate veil due to the controlling mind's use of the corporation for wrongful actions, and limited its findings to the 16 transactions to avoid inconsistent findings with the broader ongoing litigation.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against a mortgage broker and lender.

The appellant sought to refinance commercial properties he believed were worth $1.2 million with a $600,000 mortgage.

Two appraisers declined to complete appraisals at the requested valuation.

The lender eventually provided an appraisal showing a value of $600,000-$665,000 and offered revised financing of $390,000, which the appellant rejected.

The motion judge found no cause of action because the property was owned by a corporation, not the appellant, and no damages were caused by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents.