Sarah J. O’Connor

The moving party, a respondent in the underlying application, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to vary a consent order that had approved a share purchase agreement, alleging newly discovered fraud by the responding party.

The moving party sought to have the share sale proceeds paid into court as security for claims in related actions, or alternatively, a Mareva injunction restraining the responding party from dealing with the proceeds.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 59.06(2) cannot be used to amend the terms of a contract approved by a consent order.

The court also denied the Mareva injunction, finding no evidence to support a reasonable inference of a real risk that the responding party would dissipate or remove the assets to avoid a judgment.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal from orders requiring them to post security for costs and pay costs of the motions.

The underlying action involved claims of environmental contamination against the municipality and its employees.

The court applied the Paulsson factors and found that the moving parties' delay was lengthy, their explanations for the delay were not compelling, and the overall justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendant, Fletcher’s Fields Limited, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, Robert Llewellyn Jenkins (as trustee for the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball) and the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and had not demonstrated impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $20,000 as security for costs and awarded $10,000 in costs to the defendant, with both amounts payable within 60 days.

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property, claiming an equitable interest based on resulting trust or an oral trust agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim to an interest in the property and that the equities did not favour granting the CPL.

The court found insufficient credible evidence to support either a gratuitous transfer for a resulting trust or the alleged oral trust agreement, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' evidence and an adverse inference drawn from refusal to disclose electronic files.