Tibor Sarai

The plaintiff, Giuseppe Lisozzi, brought a motion seeking a full accounting of the defendant Montana Holdings Limited's Power of Sale transaction, including documentary proof for claimed deductions and expenses, and payment of proper residual funds.

Montana consented to the accounting but brought a cross-motion for security for costs, arguing the plaintiff was impecunious and the action frivolous.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an accounting, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to a significant sum and was not impecunious.

The court dismissed the defendant's cross-motion for security for costs, ruling that imposing security for costs was not a reasonable term or condition for granting the accounting order, as the accounting request was not directly related to the plaintiff's claim of an improvident sale and the plaintiff had no improper motive.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action and a related application due to the plaintiff's and its principal's failure to pay multiple prior costs awards totaling over $200,000.

The principal, acting as a self-represented litigant, argued that the defendants were partners and thus liable for the costs, and relied on a corporate indemnity.

The court rejected these arguments, applying the Rana principles to find that impecuniosity and self-representation do not excuse non-compliance with court orders.

The court dismissed the action against the moving defendants and stayed the related application, but declined to strike the plaintiff's affidavits under Rule 25.11.

This endorsement addresses costs for several prior motions.

The plaintiffs (Nicholson Group) were awarded costs for a successful motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The Janza group and Horbatiuk defendants were awarded costs for their successful motions regarding abandoned motions and contempt proceedings.

Andrey Pinsky was awarded costs against the plaintiffs for successfully opposing an indemnity motion brought by Mr. Nicholson.

The court applied principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1), declining substantial indemnity where no egregious conduct was found.

In complex multi-party litigation involving competing applications and actions, the moving parties sought advance production of documents prior to cross‑examinations on affidavits and before the close of pleadings.

The court rejected the argument that counsel had reached a binding agreement requiring early documentary production and held that no such agreement existed.

The court further held that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, affidavits of documents are generally not required until after pleadings close, absent exceptional circumstances where production is essential to plead.

Motions to disqualify counsel were not equivalent to summary judgment proceedings and therefore did not justify early disclosure.

The court denied the request for advance production and issued directions governing examinations and interim injunctive relief pending further motions.