P. Carey

The applicant brought an application to remove a Caution registered on the title of his property by his sister, the respondent, which delayed the closing of the property's sale.

The respondent claimed an unregistered interest based on an alleged loan, but withdrew the Caution the day before the hearing.

The court found the respondent had no reasonable cause to register the Caution, as a loan does not constitute an interest in land under the Land Titles Act.

The applicant was awarded $21,251.01 in damages for expenses incurred during the two-month closing delay, plus $30,000 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and brinksmanship.

The moving party, an employee of the invoice payor, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the fraud action against him.

The plaintiff factoring company was defrauded of millions of dollars through fictitious invoices.

The moving party claimed his identity was stolen by the fraudsters to confirm the fake invoices and that he was also a victim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the moving party's emails, his financial ties to the fraudulent payee, and credibility issues among the co-defendants created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The moving defendant sought to vary a Mareva injunction to release funds for restitution in an unrelated criminal matter, criminal defence legal fees, and additional civil legal fees.

Applying the four-part test for variation of a Mareva order set out in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Credit Valley Institute of Business and Technology, the court held that the moving party failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his current assets and liabilities and did not establish that no other assets were available to pay the requested expenses.

The examination of the moving party revealed significant gaps, refusals to answer questions, and unexplained financial transactions, preventing the court from properly applying the governing test.

The court also noted that the proposed restitution payment and criminal defence fees were not clearly within the categories of living or legal expenses typically permitted under a Mareva order.

The motion was largely dismissed, with a limited variance permitting potential release of $25,000 for civil legal fees subject to strict proof of prior payments.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a Mareva injunction freezing their assets in a civil fraud action involving alleged fraudulent factoring transactions worth approximately $6.5 million.

The court considered whether the plaintiff continued to demonstrate a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation.

Evidence showed that the moving defendants’ companies received substantial funds from entities involved in the fraud, that explanations for the transactions were unsupported by documentation, and that the alleged sale of a business appeared suspicious.

The court also noted conduct inconsistent with the injunction, including the use of undisclosed bank accounts.

The court held that the plaintiff continued to meet the requirements for a Mareva injunction.