Sunil S. Mathai

The court granted default judgment in favour of Lorenzo Orsetto and Ricardo Bigioni against 2416022 Ontario Ltd. and John Bigioni, finding that John’s conduct as an officer and director was oppressive and breached the reasonable expectations of the complainants under the Business Corporations Act.

The court ordered John’s removal as officer and director, the sale of his shares, and provided for judgment for any shortfall.

The decision reviews the principles of default judgment and oppression remedies, and applies them to the facts of the case.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff, Ashley Francis, to set aside a Registrar’s dismissal order for delay and for summary judgment against the remaining defendants, Robert Schneider and Sherri Hughes.

The court refused to hear the summary judgment motion but granted the motion to set aside the dismissal, subject to a timetable for the action’s progress.

The decision reviews the application of the Reid factors for setting aside a dismissal, the contextual approach to delay, and the balancing of prejudice and public interest in deciding matters on their merits.

The court considered whether to permit a motion for summary judgment in a real estate dispute involving the failed sale of three properties.

The plaintiff, Michelle Fraser, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Mathew Pearson, who in turn brought third-party claims against his former counsel and a title insurer.

The court declined to schedule the summary judgment motion at this stage, citing the likelihood of conflicting expert evidence and the need for a more complete record.

The parties were directed to develop an expedited trial preparation plan.

The plaintiff, Slave Paunovski, brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging fraud and dissipation of assets.

The court granted the injunction against Danny and Mara Risteski, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and knowing receipt, but dismissed the motion against Donco Investments Ltd. due to insufficient evidence.

The decision reviews the procedural history, the legal test for Mareva injunctions, and the adequacy of disclosure and evidence provided.