Taek Soo Shin

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated October 6, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded all-inclusive costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The proposed intervenor sought leave to intervene as an added party in the defendant's motion for leave to appeal a Mareva injunction.

The proposed intervenor argued he had an interest in the proceeding because the motion judge made significant adverse findings about his integrity and conduct, including allegations of operating a Ponzi scheme.

While the Divisional Court found the proposed intervenor had an interest in the subject matter, it declined to exercise its discretion to permit intervention.

The court noted that the defendant would likely advance the same arguments and the proposed intervenor would have other opportunities to defend his reputation in related ongoing litigation.

The motion to intervene was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for specific performance of a failed commercial real estate agreement of purchase and sale, the denial of his post-trial motion to amend his pleadings to claim damages, and the trial judge's finding that a 12% mortgage interest rate offended s. 8 of the Interest Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to grant specific performance, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the property was not unique and damages would be adequate.

The Court also upheld the refusal to allow a post-trial amendment to claim damages, noting the prejudice to the respondent.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the mortgage, holding that the 12% interest rate commenced prior to default and therefore did not violate s. 8 of the Interest Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze approximately $6.1 million in settlement funds held in the defendant's solicitor's trust account.

The funds were allegedly derived from a fraudulent investment scheme involving the defendant corporation, which was controlled by individuals connected to a Ponzi scheme operated by Arash Missaghi.

The plaintiffs alleged they were induced to invest substantial sums through misrepresentation and fraud.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, that assets were in the jurisdiction, that there was a risk of dissipation, and that irreparable harm would result if the funds were distributed.

The court also allowed the defendant to withdraw $250,000 from the frozen funds for legal expenses.