Samil Latif Mohamedali Chagpar

This costs endorsement arose from a motion brought by the applicant wife for the appointment of an interim receiver, which was adjourned after the respondent husband secured financing.

The court found the applicant was justified in bringing the motion due to the husband's delay in payment but acted unreasonably by refusing to adjourn the motion when requested by the co-respondent brother, who had recently retained counsel.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the applicant's requested costs, disallowing fees for court attendance and scrutinizing the reasonableness of claimed hours and disbursements.

The respondent husband was ordered to pay $9,744.61 in costs.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion for contempt against a lawyer who was not a party to the litigation but who held proceeds from the sale of the respondent’s business in trust.

A prior ex parte freezing order required the proceeds of sale to remain in trust pending further court order, except for payment to a secured creditor and legal fees.

Despite receiving the order and being warned not to breach it, the lawyer disbursed substantial funds to trade creditors, family members of the respondent, and others without seeking court approval.

The court held that the order was clear and unequivocal and that negotiations between counsel did not alter its binding effect.

Applying the contempt test, the court found that the lawyer knowingly and deliberately breached the order beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following dismissal of a motion for summary judgment arising from claims connected to a Ponzi scheme, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty of the factual circumstances, but the court held that novelty alone does not justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The defendants sought either substantial indemnity or partial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs’ litigation strategy unsuccessful but not unreasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each defendant, with modest reductions applied to certain claimed amounts.

A creditor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside a transfer of a debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home to his spouse as a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The debtor had personally guaranteed a corporate loan and transferred his joint interest in the home to his spouse for nominal consideration during the period when the corporation was seeking loan accommodations.

The court found multiple badges of fraud, including the non-arm’s-length relationship, lack of consideration, timing of the transfer, and the effect of placing the debtor’s only significant asset beyond the reach of creditors.

The court held that the conveyance was made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud creditors and that no genuine issue required a trial.

Summary judgment was granted setting aside the transfer as void against the creditor.