T. Gordner

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff municipality on her property.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's former husband, while employed by the municipality, defrauded it of approximately $23 million and used the stolen funds to extensively renovate the property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for a proprietary interest in the property through equitable tracing, and that the defendant failed to satisfy the factors required to discharge a CPL under section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs and certain defendants consented to vary a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The consent order unfreezes three bank accounts belonging to the consenting defendants and directs the transfer of funds from one account to the plaintiffs' solicitor's trust account, to be held pending further order or written consent.

The court granted the order as requested.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to vary a Mareva injunction to unfreeze the bank account of one of the corporate defendants to allow for the operation of a store.

The court granted the variation.

Additionally, counsel for several defendants brought a motion on consent to be removed as counsel of record, which was also granted, with directions for the transfer of trust funds subject to the Mareva injunction.

The plaintiffs sought an order extending a Mareva Injunction and Norwich Order, and for production of bank accounts.

The defendants sought a variance of the Mareva Injunction to unfreeze a bank account to allow business transactions in the ordinary course, prevent interference with third-party suppliers, and allow for the payment of legal expenses.

The court granted the relief sought by the parties on consent.

The defendants moved to stay a civil action and an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) proceeding, arguing that concurrent proceedings alongside an Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ) prosecution for by-law infractions would prejudice their right to a fair trial and against self-incrimination.

The court temporarily stayed the civil action to avoid duplicative proceedings, noting the plaintiff's undertaking not to seek double recovery.

However, the court dismissed the motion to stay the ERT proceeding, finding that existing statutory protections and undertaking rules were sufficient to protect the defendants' rights in the OCJ prosecution.