Ran He

The corporate defendants, CYD Investment Inc. and CY Capital Inc., brought a motion to dissolve a Mareva injunction granted ex parte against all defendants in a fraud action.

The plaintiff alleged the corporate defendants were vehicles for a co-defendant's fraudulent scheme involving private mortgage lending.

The court found that the more developed evidentiary record undermined two key factual underpinnings of the Mareva order: the strong prima facie case that the co-defendant controlled the corporate defendants, and the finding of a real risk of asset dissipation.

The balance of convenience also favoured dissolution given sufficient assets remained under other injunctions to satisfy the claim.

The Mareva injunction was dissolved against the corporate defendants, with a reference ordered for damages and costs awarded in their favour.

In a costs-only decision following trial reasons, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $53,000 plus disbursements after partial success on breach of contract and failure on negligent misrepresentation.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing reasonableness, proportionality, divided success, and litigation conduct.

Although the plaintiff was nominally successful at trial, the court found the plaintiff recovered only a fraction of its claim, overclaimed legal time, and engaged in concerning conduct, including issues around a purported licence and HST-related purchase price misstatement.

The court held substantial indemnity was unwarranted and ultimately declined to award any costs to the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for $3.76 million after the respondent investors were defrauded in a second mortgage scheme.

The investment funds were misappropriated by employees of a law firm acting as agents for the appellants' gas station development project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the summary judgment framework, his conclusion that an agency relationship existed, or his imposition of joint and several liability based on findings that the defendants worked together to deprive the investors of their funds.

Leave to appeal the substantial indemnity costs award was also denied.

Appeal of a summary judgment motion where the motion judge found that the appellant and respondent had entered into a valid partnership agreement to acquire, renovate, and rent a property in Scarborough.

The respondent contributed to the purchase price and renovation costs but only the appellant's name was on title.

The appellant obtained mortgages exceeding the parties' agreement without the respondent's consent.

The motion judge granted declaratory relief recognizing the respondent's 50 percent interest in the property via resulting trust, issued a permanent injunction against harassment and interference, and ordered a reference to determine damages.

The appellant appealed on grounds of procedural fairness, text message interpretation, and appropriateness of summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasoning or application of the summary judgment process.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's July 29, 2025 decision granting the plaintiffs' motion to extend a Mareva injunction and dismissing the defendant's cross-motion to discharge it.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis (80%) in the amount of $60,374.66, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis (60%) in the amount of $46,459.84.

The defendant argued costs should be awarded in the cause.

The court adopted the principle that costs for interlocutory injunctions should generally be reserved to the trial judge, but fixed the quantum at this stage to avoid duplication.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $46,459.84 to the successful party in the cause, finding that substantial indemnity costs were not appropriate as no final finding of fraud had been made.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction originally issued ex parte by Lack J. on April 23, 2025, freezing the defendant's assets.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the injunction.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented himself as a currency exchange operator, received approximately $1.86 million in Chinese currency from the plaintiff, and failed to remit corresponding Canadian dollars.

The defendant subsequently acknowledged the debt through multiple written agreements but refused to repay and allegedly misrepresented property ownership to secure the debt.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, that the defendant had assets in the jurisdiction, and that there was a serious risk of asset dissipation based on the defendant's pattern of fraudulent conduct.

The court extended the Mareva injunction in its amended form, which had been substantially modified through consent orders to permit the defendant access to funds for living expenses, business operations, legal fees, and mortgage refinancing, with approximately $500,000 in surplus borrowed funds remaining in the defendant's lawyer's trust account.

This costs decision follows a motion by Capitalplus Development Group Ltd. to discharge a claim for lien registered by 2698368 Ontario Inc. The court found that 269 did not have a lien and ordered the return of security posted by Capitalplus, but dismissed the remainder of the motion.

On costs, the court awarded Capitalplus $25,000 in substantial indemnity costs, to be paid jointly and severally by 269 and its principal, Yang Yu, within thirty days.

The court found Ms. Yang’s conduct in registering the lien to be reprehensible and determined that the corporate veil should be pierced to impose personal liability.

The court discounted the costs award due to Capitalplus’s partial lack of success on the motion.

The decision grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, who were defrauded of $2.65 million in a real estate investment scheme involving a solicitor’s law firm, his office manager/mother, and an in-house mortgage broker.

The court finds the solicitor and his firm liable for breach of trust, negligence, and fiduciary duty, and holds the property company and its principals jointly and severally liable.

The court awards compensatory and punitive damages, as well as substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant, Capitalplus Development Group Ltd., brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a claim for lien registered by 2698368 Ontario Inc. on the title to 105 Angus Drive, Toronto.

The court found that 2698368 Ontario Inc. was an "owner" within the meaning of the Act, not a contractor, and therefore could not claim a lien.

The court ordered the return of posted security to Capitalplus and dismissed the remainder of the motion, but allowed 2698368 Ontario Inc. to proceed with its breach of contract claim for renovation costs.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court judgment that found the appellants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and pierced the corporate veil.

The underlying dispute involved a three-way agreement for medical gloves, where the appellants, acting as distributors, failed to deliver a significant portion of goods and misrepresented their "factory direct" relationship with the manufacturer.

The trial judge found the appellants engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation in Canada, leading to the plaintiff's losses, and held the individual principals personally liable.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the application of the corporate veil piercing test, the trial judge's distinction between Canada-based and China-based fraud, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that fraudulent misrepresentation constitutes "conduct akin to fraud" for piercing the corporate veil, that the trial judge's analysis of distinct frauds was within the pleadings, and that the costs award was a discretionary matter warranting no interference.

The Plaintiffs (Arkland Homes Inc. et al. and Zhen Kang) brought an action seeking declarations regarding mortgage standing and to set aside property sales.

This decision addresses three interlocutory motions: the Plaintiffs' motion for an injunction to restrain the sale of the Bannatyne Property, Defendant Qiong Huang's motion for possession of 177 Rumsey Road, and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on 171 Rumsey Road.

The court granted the Plaintiffs' injunction and CPL motions, finding serious issues to be tried regarding the mortgage defaults, the application of a significant payment, and allegations of bad faith and improper conduct by the Defendants Ming Wei Liu and Yizi Feng, including the hasty sale of properties below market value and an alarming "self-help" attempt to evict occupants.

The court denied Ms. Huang's motion for possession, concluding that whether she was a bona fide purchaser for value was a genuine issue requiring trial.

The court also ordered consolidation and case management for all related litigation.

This decision addresses three motions: the defendants' motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, the defendants' motion to lift a Mareva injunction against two defendants, and the defendants' motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no direct adverse legal interests and that the "bright line rule" did not apply.

The motion to lift the Mareva injunction was also dismissed, as the court found evidence of co-mingled funds implicating the defendants.

However, the motion to discharge the CPL was granted, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an interest in the property, which was acquired prior to the investment relationship.

The appellant, 2557904 Ontario Inc. (the stalking horse bidder), appealed a motion judge's order that dismissed the receiver's motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) and instead approved the debtor's (1000093910 Ontario Inc.) motion to redeem a first mortgage.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by not ensuring 255 received compensation for costs thrown away and by granting provisional enforcement of the order after an appeal notice was filed.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to require the debtor to pay $300,000 in compensation to 255 and setting aside the provisional execution.

The court also ordered that if the refinancing transaction does not close, the AVO for 255 will be granted.

The applicant, Jie Zhang, sought to enforce judgments from Chinese courts against the respondent, Fan Zhou, a resident of Ontario.

The Beijing Xicheng District People's Court had issued a judgment in Zhang's favour for breach of contract, which was subsequently upheld on appeal.

Zhou later initiated a new proceeding in Guangzhou, attempting to undermine the Beijing judgment, but this action was dismissed as a "repeat complaint" and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice applied the principles for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments, confirming that the Beijing judgment met the criteria of being rendered by a competent jurisdiction, being final, and being for a definite sum.

The respondent's defense of lack of natural justice was rejected, as the court found no evidence that the Chinese proceedings were contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice.

The application was granted, and the Chinese judgments were recognized and ordered to be enforced in Ontario.

This appeal concerned the beneficial ownership of a residential property following the separation of common-law partners who had operated successful immigration businesses.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by isolating the property dispute from the parties' broader financial arrangements, including an agreed 60/40 profit split from their businesses.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the respondent held a 50% beneficial interest in the property, noting the case was pleaded solely on that issue and the appellant had not advanced a counterclaim.

The appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence, alleging depression and anxiety to explain a failure to plead a claim, was dismissed for not meeting the Palmer test.

The appellants sued their former lawyer and her firm for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, alleging she failed to proceed promptly with motions, incurred unnecessary costs, and obtained inadequate costs awards.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the lawyer was successful in her conduct of the litigation and was not responsible for the delays or the quantum of costs awarded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions and agreeing that expert evidence was required to establish the standard of care regarding a settlement offer.

The appellants sought to overturn a summary judgment granting the respondent recovery on a $460,000 loan secured by a promissory note.

They argued the motion judge erred in applying the summary judgment test from Hryniak v. Mauldin, failing to apply the Statute of Frauds, and enforcing an oppressive interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court affirmed that the promissory note was valid and enforceable, the Statute of Frauds did not apply due to existing written documentation and the parties' conduct, and the agreed-upon interest rate was valid.

This endorsement concerns a motion for summary judgment that was adjourned due to the absence of necessary parties (a mortgagee and another partner in a declared partnership) and improper uploading of voluminous materials to Caselines.

The court directed the moving party to serve the necessary parties, re-upload exhibits separately, and provide hyperlinks in factums, adjourning the motion for a full day hearing.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyer and her law firm for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, primarily alleging she mishandled a security for costs motion and other procedural steps, resulting in higher legal fees.

The court found that the action was essentially a fee dispute cloaked as a negligence claim.

The plaintiffs failed to tender expert evidence to establish the standard of care for the lawyer's advice, and the court found no clear error or egregious conduct in her handling of the file.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $80,000 in costs on an elevated scale due to their improper motives in bringing the litigation.

This costs endorsement followed a successful appeal by the appellant, Dong Jin Qiu, regarding the quantum of damages.

The appeal resulted in the respondent, Biao Liu, owing the appellant $10,496.68.

The court determined that the appellant was the successful party at both trial and appeal, contrary to the respondent's argument for partial indemnity costs based on a forfeited deposit.

As the appellant did not request costs, no order for trial costs was made.