Richard J. Payne

The plaintiff sought damages for losses arising from the defendant’s failure to complete a real estate purchase.

The court found the plaintiff acted reasonably in re-listing and selling the property after the defendant’s breach, rejected the defence of failure to mitigate, and awarded damages and costs to the plaintiff.

The court also addressed the admissibility of evidence from the plaintiff’s real estate agent as a participant expert.

The plaintiff brought an action against his brother's former wife, claiming she held his interest in a property in trust.

The property had been sold and the proceeds disbursed pursuant to family law proceedings between the brother and his former wife.

The plaintiff argued for an express, constructive, or resulting trust.

The court dismissed the action, finding insufficient evidence of an express trust, no equitable obligation or unjust enrichment to support a constructive trust, and that the presumption of resulting trust did not apply.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for an interim and interlocutory Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging fraud related to a $1.8 million loan.

The plaintiff claimed fraudulent misrepresentation regarding property ownership and the defendants' failure to record mortgages, which allowed subsequent encumbrances.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud but was not satisfied that there was a real risk of asset dissipation or irreparable harm, particularly as the pending sale of a property was deemed a bona fide transaction.

The motion for an interim Mareva injunction was dismissed, but the defendants were ordered to provide disclosure of payout statements and writ of seizure and sale details for the property sale.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with a previous court order.

The parties settled the motion on the morning of the hearing.

The self-represented applicant sought costs of $42,994.75 on a full indemnity basis.

The court balanced the respondent's deliberate flouting of the order against the crushing burden of existing costs orders and the late settlement, fixing costs at $15,000 inclusive.