Patricia L. McLean

The plaintiffs brought a motion to continue an interim Mareva injunction, a Norwich Order, and certificates of pending litigation against the defendants, alleging they were victims of a multi-million dollar mortgage fraud orchestrated by their former lawyer and acquaintances to pay off the ex-husband's gambling debts.

The defendants cross-moved to vacate the orders and enforce the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud, noting their evidence was implausible and that they failed to make full and fair disclosure when obtaining the ex parte orders.

The court vacated the injunctions and orders but dismissed the defendants' motion to enforce the undertaking as to damages, finding it premature as the underlying claims of professional negligence and fraud remained to be determined at trial.

Following the settlement of cross-applications alleging shareholder oppression regarding a jointly owned villa property, the parties sought a determination of costs.

The court ordered each party to bear their own costs for the applicant's initial application, as neither achieved success and the matter was resolved via a buyout process.

For the respondents' cross-application, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant, finding the cross-application lacked merit as the applicant was a minority shareholder incapable of oppressive conduct under the Business Corporations Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion judge had found a triable issue regarding whether fraudulent concealment prevented the moving party from relying on the limitations period in the Trustee Act.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the moving party failed to establish conflicting case law or an issue of public importance that went beyond the interests of the immediate parties.

The defendants moved for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff Quebec corporations, alleging insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiffs conceded the need for security but contested the quantum, payment schedule, and holder of the security.

The court reduced the defendants' projected costs, determined security should be on a partial indemnity scale (60% of revised costs), and ordered staged payments into court.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs for the motion, having been successful on the contested issues of quantum and scheduling.

The defendant First Associates Investments Inc. moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by the estate trustee of Nancy Wagg, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under section 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The action alleged breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty related to unsuitable investments made by Nancy Wagg's son-in-law, Todd Monaghan, an investment advisor and officer of First Associates.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while section 38(1) of the Trustee Act applies to claims for pure economic loss, there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the application of the fraudulent concealment doctrine.

Specifically, triable issues existed concerning whether Monaghan's conduct was unconscionable, First Associates' vicarious liability, and whether critical information about the investments was concealed from Nancy Wagg or her subsequent estate trustees.