Scott Rosen

The plaintiff previously obtained a Mareva Order preserving up to $327,000 from the sale of the responding defendant's property.

On the return of the motion, the responding defendant's materials were not filed in time.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment to file reply materials and conduct cross-examinations.

On consent, the court extended the Mareva Order pending a full hearing, released $70,000 to the responding defendant for living expenses and legal fees, and set a timetable for the remaining steps in the action.

Following a successful motion by the applicant, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent had failed to make offers to settle, moved assets to family members, and deliberately provided inadequate disclosure.

The court found the respondent's conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, which includes intent to conceal and inflict harm.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $39,000.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, extensive financial disclosure, preservation orders, and interim disbursements in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in a complex corporate reorganization and failed to provide transparent disclosure regarding his assets and income.

The court imputed an annual income of $400,000 to the respondent based on the parties' lavish lifestyle and apparent diversion of funds.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim support, provide extensive corporate disclosure, and pay $100,000 as an advance for interim disbursements.

Preservation orders and certificates of pending litigation were also granted due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The respondents in the main application brought motions to disqualify the applicants' solicitor and for security for costs, but withdrew them shortly before the return date.

The parties appeared to argue costs.

The court found no basis for the disqualification motion and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants.

For the security for costs motion, the court awarded costs incurred after the date a related Michigan action was dismissed, as the respondents delayed in withdrawing the motion.

The court fixed the applicants' total costs for both motions at $12,500 on an all-inclusive basis.

In a receivership-related motion arising from alleged fraudulent investment activities, the receiver sought authorization to utilize frozen funds held by entities subject to prior court orders to pay ongoing investigation costs.

The court held that the circumstances differed from typical insolvency proceedings because many affected entities were not parties and no specific allegations had been pleaded against them.

Exercising discretion under the prior freezing order, the court declined to allow prepayment of the receiver’s investigative expenses from the frozen funds.

The court also rejected a request for a sealing order due to the strong presumption of open courts but granted a confidentiality order restricting the receiver from voluntarily providing information to tax or criminal authorities.

Costs were not awarded due to divided success.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the successful defendants sought costs of the motion.

The motion had been brought on very short notice and sought relief akin to a Mareva-type injunction, requiring the defendants to respond urgently.

The defendants requested substantial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff argued the matter was simple and proposed a modest costs award.

The court found the motion was not simple and that the defendants had been placed in a difficult position by the short notice, but held that the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring $1.1 million from the proceeds of the sale of a Hamilton property to be paid into court for interim preservation pending litigation.

The dispute arose from a property investment arrangement between long‑time associates, where the moving party alleged entitlement to a proportionate share of the profits based on funds invested.

The court held that the moving party did not establish a proprietary claim to a specific fund because he was merely an investor and had no proprietary interest in the sale proceeds held in an investment account.

Even if the first branches of the test were met, the balance of convenience did not favour the order as there was no evidence the responding parties intended to dissipate assets or frustrate enforcement of a potential judgment.

The motion was therefore dismissed with costs.

Following a trial involving a dispute over a claimed leasehold interest and alleged obligations to improve leased premises, the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed and the defendants succeeded on a counterclaim for rent arrears in the amount of $120,000 plus prejudgment interest.

The successful defendants sought recovery of legal costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the claimed fees and disbursements.

The court reduced amounts relating to certain research, an unsuccessful motion for possession, and certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $33,900 in fees plus $2,681.43 in disbursements inclusive of tax.

The plaintiffs alleged they had entered into a four-year lease of rural property to operate a horse boarding and breeding business and claimed the landlords were obliged to repair and complete the barn and related facilities before rent became payable.

They sought damages for lost profits after the property allegedly remained unusable.

The defendants denied any such agreement, asserting that only limited draft leases existed and that the only executed lease concerned the residential portion of the property.

The court found no agreement requiring the defendants to complete repairs and held that the draft leases, which imposed repair obligations on the tenants and contemplated shorter terms, were the best evidence of the parties’ intentions.

The plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed, possession was ordered to the defendant companies, and judgment was granted on the counterclaim for unpaid rent relating to the house lease.