Rebecca Huang

The defendant Ioan Hossu brought a motion to strike the action against him under Rule 21 without leave to amend.

The court struck certain claims (breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith in contractual performance, and breach of fiduciary duty) without leave to amend, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court struck other claims (fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment) with leave to amend, determining that while deficiencies existed, they could potentially be cured through proper pleading.

The court did not strike the conversion claim.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's request to adjourn the motion and ordered that the defendant provide bank account information regarding disputed funds held in Cuba.

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 endorsement addresses the appropriate disposition of costs following the granting of an interlocutory proprietary injunction in a commercial dispute involving $16 million advanced by the applicants to the respondents.

The court considers whether costs should be awarded immediately or in the cause, referencing relevant case law and legal commentary.

Ultimately, the court orders that costs be in the cause, given the expedited hearing and the nature of the proceedings.

The court considered a motion for an interlocutory proprietary injunction and leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over three development properties.

The Applicants advanced $16 million to the Respondents for property purchases, claiming a common intention that the properties would stand as security.

The Respondents argued the advances were loans or investments without property interests.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding an equitable mortgage and unjust enrichment, granted injunctions over two properties, and a limited injunction over the third to allow refinancing.

The court also found that, if necessary, a CPL would be granted.

Wiseway Global Canada Consulting Ltd. sought leave to further amend its statement of claim following examination for discovery.

CTBC Bank Corp. (Canada) opposed the motion, arguing that many proposed amendments improperly pleaded evidence and argument, contained unnecessary repetition and inconsistencies, and included unsupported or scandalous headings.

The court, applying Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, granted leave in part.

It allowed most of the proposed amendments, emphasizing that a statement of claim should contain all material facts and that inconsistencies with a reply are not a bar to amendment.

However, the court denied leave for certain paragraphs and a heading that were found to improperly plead evidence or argument, or were unsupported by material facts (specifically, the "Ponzi scheme" characterization).

The court heard two applications concerning the interpretation of an Asset Purchase Agreement.

The vendor (1000197094 ONTARIO INC.) sought a declaration that Section 3.04 of the agreement constituted an arbitration agreement.

The purchaser (1872488 ONTARIO INC.) argued against this and brought a cross-application seeking disclosure of information related to Work in Progress and Net Earned Revenue valuations, and a determination that the valuation process was not arbitration.

The court found that Section 3.04 was indeed an arbitration agreement, requiring a final and binding determination by an independent accounting firm.

The court also ordered ongoing disclosure of relevant information by both parties regarding Work in Progress and Net Earned Revenue, clarifying that these two items were the subject of the dispute.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay was successful in his application and Mohammad Ali Eksir's application was dismissed.

Yousufzay sought full indemnity costs, while Eksir argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found Yousufzay entitled to costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity basis due to Eksir's unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty and adverse credibility findings against him.

The court declined full indemnity costs, finding the case did not feature grave misconduct, and awarded $170,000.00 in all-inclusive substantial indemnity costs to Yousufzay.

This case involved cross-applications between two shareholders/directors of a closely held corporation, United Investment.

Mohammad Ali Eksir sought a declaration of oppression under section 248 of the OBCA and an order to wind up the corporation, alleging self-dealing and financial misconduct by Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay.

Yousufzay sought an order for a shareholder meeting and production of financial records.

The court dismissed Eksir's oppression application, finding he failed to prove his reasonable expectations were violated, as he was aware of and implicitly approved the impugned transactions (shareholder loans, donations, home renovation expenses, snow clearing).

The court also dismissed the request for winding up, stating it was not a just and equitable remedy given the lack of serious harm and the availability of less drastic remedies.

Yousufzay's application for a shareholder meeting with varied quorum requirements under section 106 of the OBCA was granted to allow for the appointment of directors and address corporate governance issues.

The plaintiff, Canadian Flight Academy Ltd. (CFA), brought a motion seeking production of documents and answers to refusals from the City of Oshawa in a dispute over a lease extension at the Oshawa Executive Airport.

The motion addressed three main areas: airport noise complaints, land parcel "Part 42" usage, and a proposed land sale.

A significant portion of the ruling focused on the City's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over various emails and "closed reports." The court applied principles of relevance, proportionality, and third-party privacy, and conducted a detailed, document-by-document analysis of privilege claims, granting some production requests while upholding many of the City's privilege assertions.

The plaintiff objected to the defendant's production of 17,000 documents in a common Schedule "A" for two intertwined actions, arguing for separate listings.

The court dismissed the objection, finding the issues in both proceedings virtually the same and the production not extraordinarily burdensome, especially with the availability of e-discovery tools.

The court deemed the defendant's approach efficient, affordable, and proportionate.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondents in the appeal (IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt), fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

This decision followed an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

This appeal concerned an insurer's duty to defend where the insurer alleged material misrepresentations and breach of policy conditions by the insured.

The insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, denied defence to IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt against a copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming the insured misrepresented their business operations in the insurance application.

The motion judge granted the duty to defend, refusing to consider extrinsic evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, affirming the duty to defend.

The court applied a flexible approach, distinguishing this from a typical 'pleadings rule' case, and held that resolving the alleged misrepresentations would require determining contested factual issues central to the underlying litigation, which is inappropriate at the duty to defend stage.

This endorsement addresses an application by Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. to enforce a Chinese judgment against Fasteners & Fittings Inc. The respondent opposed enforcement, raising defences of natural justice and public policy, arguing the foreign judgment was obtained unfairly and its enforcement would violate Canadian public policy, especially given related fraud allegations against Michael Wang (owner of the applicant) in a separate Canadian action.

The court found that the complex issues, including the potential for a new defence to foreign judgment enforcement and the need for full evidence and participation from all interested parties (including Michael Wang), could not be fairly determined in a summary process.

Consequently, the application was ordered to proceed to trial as an action, with directions for pleadings, discovery, and a common trial with the related action.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for particulars of an oral supply agreement alleged by the plaintiff in its Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff argued that further particulars were not required and that the issue was res judicata based on a prior Rule 21 motion decision.

The court found that the prior Rule 21 decision did not preclude a motion for particulars.

The court held that the plaintiff's written responses combined with oral clarifications provided during the hearing sufficiently answered the defendants' demands.

The plaintiff was ordered to provide the oral particulars in writing within 20 days.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for an upcoming motion for summary judgment.

The court endorsed the schedule agreed to by all counsel, setting deadlines for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums.

The applicants, an IT services company and its sole director, sought a declaration that their errors and omissions insurer had a duty to defend them against a copyright infringement action commenced in the U.S. The insurer denied coverage, citing material misrepresentations in the insurance application and various policy exclusions, relying heavily on extrinsic evidence.

The court ruled that the duty to defend is governed by the pleadings in the underlying action and the policy language, not by extrinsic evidence that would convert the motion into a "trial within a trial." Finding that the U.S. claims, on their face, fell within the policy's coverage for a "wrongful act" in connection with "professional business" and within the coverage period, and that the insurer failed to meet its onus to prove exclusions without the inadmissible extrinsic evidence, the application was allowed.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff alleged a fraudulent scheme involving breach of contract, conspiracy, and other torts by its former employee and various corporate and individual defendants in China and Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts to support personal liability against the individual defendants (except the former employee) separate from their roles as corporate directors or officers.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with the court's directives.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for insurance coverage, bad faith, and professional negligence, the successful defendants sought costs.

Economical sought substantial indemnity costs based on unaccepted offers to settle.

The court rejected this, finding no egregious misconduct by the plaintiff, and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the partial indemnity hourly rates at 60% of actual rates and assessed the reasonableness of the time and disbursements claimed, including expert witness fees.

The court awarded $356,452.49 in costs to Economical and $183,979.82 to FCA, emphasizing the objective of fixing an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay.

The appellant purchased a pre-construction condominium detached house unit under an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

On the closing date, the appellant's solicitor advised that certain common elements (a parkette and entrance/exit gates) had not been constructed, contrary to the disclosure statement, and reserved the right to rescind.

The respondent terminated the agreement and forfeited the deposit.

The appellant subsequently rescinded and sought return of the deposit.

The application judge found the appellant breached the agreement and dismissed the application for return of the deposit.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no material change in circumstances under the Condominium Act and that time was not of the essence for construction of the common elements.