Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 10-24289
Date: 2012-07-06
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: LAKEPOINT MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND 1 INCORPORATED, Plaintiff

And:
LEONARD LYN, SINGH LYN LLP, TRINITY DIVERSIFIED NORTH AMERICA LTD., FORGE D'URZO aka FORTUNATO D'URZO, SCOTT CHRISTOPHER WEBSTER, ROBERT JOSEPH HYDE, MARIO SERGIO, FINBANK MORTGAGE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, TRINITY GLOBAL REALTY LIMITED, TRINITY DIVERSIFIED MECHANICAL LTD., TRINITY GLOBAL INSURANCES INC., TRINITY TRUST INSURANCE LIMITED, TRINITY MEMORIALS INC., PALADIN CORP., TRINITY LAOTIAN LTD., TRINITY GLOBAL CORP., CANADIAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC., VENTURE SYNERGIES INC., CORPORATE & PERSONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.,

Defendants

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice M. Dale Parayeski

Counsel:
George Limberis, Counsel for the Plaintiff

George Corsianos, Counsel for the Defendants: Trinity Diversified North America Ltd., Forge D'urzo aka Fortunato D'urzo, Finbank Mortgage and Finance Corporation, Trinity Global Realty Limited, Trinity Diversified Mechanical Ltd., Trinity Global Insurances Inc., Trinity Trust Insurance Limited, Trinity Memorials Inc., Trinity Laotian Ltd., Trinity Global Corp., Corporate & Personal Financial Services Inc.

Released: July 6, 2012

Costs Endorsement

[1] The parties involved in the motion upon which I released written reasons dated May 28 th , 2012, were not able to agree upon costs relative to that unnecessarily lengthy hearing. I invited them to make written submissions should that be the case, and both “sides” have done so. I have reviewed those submissions carefully. With due respect, it appears that the parties either do not understand the essential nature of my ruling or that they are feigning lack of understanding for tactical purposes.

[2] The results of the motions before me were mixed. Both “sides” “lost”. The moving defendants “lost” in the sense that their cross-motion to set aside the ex-parte order of Cavarzan J. dated December 9 th , 2011, together with subsequent orders that flowed from it, was dismissed. The plaintiff “lost” in the sense that I found sufficient deficiencies in its ex-parte motion materials presented to Cavarzan J. that I would have set aside the orders mentioned above but for my view that it would have been inequitable to do so. The plaintiff was saved from the result that would have normally flowed from its flawed affidavits by extraneous circumstances for which it cannot take credit.

[3] Given the mixed results, it is appropriate that there be no order to costs relative to the long motion heard by me on January 12 th , 13 th , 16 th , 17 th , 18 th , and on February 8 th and 9 th , 2012. So ordered.

Parayeski J.

Date: July 6, 2012