Teresa Cheung

Following a finding of civil contempt for breaching a court order that restrained her from participating in the management of a corporation, the moving parties sought a 20-day period of incarceration as a penalty for the plaintiff.

The Superior Court of Justice declined to order incarceration, finding that the plaintiff had taken steps to purge her contempt and that her removal from the board of directors best served the purpose of ensuring compliance.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs.

The moving parties, Salesgrowth Development Inc., Elizabeth Gartey, and Dimitry Obouhov, sought to enforce minutes of settlement entered into with the responding parties, Tandem 2021 Inc., Gyunel Mamedova, and Kamilla Yusuphanova.

The settlement required Tandem to pay $180,000 by March 8, 2025, failing which judgment would be entered.

Tandem defaulted and requested an adjournment to obtain further evidence, but the court denied the request, finding the evidence irrelevant to the enforcement of the settlement.

The court granted judgment to Salesgrowth for $180,000 plus 48% interest per annum, as agreed in the settlement, and awarded no costs.

The appellants appealed a costs order of $691,304.74 on a substantial indemnity basis, awarded after the respondents successfully moved to set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The Divisional Court upheld the substantial indemnity scale, finding the appellants' failure to make full and frank disclosure was not inadvertent.

However, the court found the motion judge erred in failing to properly analyze the bills of costs and apply the Boucher principles to ensure the quantum was fair and reasonable.

The court reduced the costs awarded to the Yemec respondents by 40% and to the Bungaro respondents by 20%.

The court also held that post-judgment interest on the costs award should run from the date of the costs order, not the date of the decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a costs order granting the defendants substantial indemnity costs of $616,900 following the dissolution of an ex parte Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The motion judge had awarded substantial indemnity costs based on a finding that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure, regardless of whether the failure was willful.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs award due to the lack of a full analysis under Rule 57.01 and the questionable proposition that unintentional non-disclosure automatically warrants substantial indemnity costs.

The court also found the issues to be of general public importance given the magnitude of the award and the need for appellate guidance on the new costs regime.

The United States of America and the Federal Trade Commission appealed a decision setting aside an ex parte Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order against the respondents, who operated a telemarketing scheme selling Canadian lottery tickets to U.S. residents.

The appellants alleged the respondents engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation by demanding up-front fees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusions that the appellants failed to establish a strong prima facie case of common law fraud or a real risk of asset dissipation.

Following an appeal that reduced the respondent's trial judgment to $25,000, the appellant sought to deprive the respondent of trial costs under former Rule 76.10, arguing the action should have been brought under the simplified procedure.

The Court of Appeal held that it was reasonable for the respondent to have commenced and continued the action under the ordinary procedure, as the original claim was for $70,000 based on bona fide estimates and the trial award was $54,980.34.

The trial costs award was not disturbed.

The moving parties brought motions to quash an appeal from an order that dissolved two earlier orders.

The responding parties argued that the order was a final determination on the issue of standing, making it appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory, as it did not finally dispose of the issue of standing, and granted the motions to quash the appeal.

Borins J.A. dissented, finding the order final as it disposed of the plaintiffs' claim for interlocutory injunctive relief.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $54,980.34 for the cost of replacing an entire swimming pool structure due to defective workmanship.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by awarding replacement costs when the evidence indicated the pool was structurally sound and only required repairs to the retaining walls and decking.

The Court held that awarding a new pool would provide a substantial gratuitous benefit.

The appeal was allowed, and damages were reduced to $25,000.