Rhyan Ahmed

The appellants (Molu's corporations) appealed a Master's decision refusing to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against three properties.

The CPL was sought in the context of a counterclaim alleging fraudulent conveyance by the respondent (Hassoun) to his wife.

The Master considered both a prima facie fraud test and the three-part Grefford test, finding the appellants failed to meet the onus on either.

The appeal court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error in law or palpable and overriding error, and that the Master's factual conclusions were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The plaintiff sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a condominium unit following a failed purchase transaction involving alleged fraud and a forged signature.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found no triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land, as his interest was lost upon failure to close.

Even if a triable issue existed, the property was not unique, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court emphasized that the vendor (Monarch) was an innocent party and should not be unduly prejudiced by holding the unit.

Costs were awarded to the responding defendants.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from soliciting customers, alleging breach of a non-solicitation clause in a confidentiality agreement.

The respondents denied signing the agreement.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the agreement's existence but no irreparable harm, as losses were quantifiable in damages.

The motion for injunction was dismissed, and the application was converted to an action for damages.

No costs were awarded.