T. Nguyen

The defendants, who are lawyers, were previously found in civil contempt for failing to comply with a Mareva injunction and production orders related to the misappropriation of millions of dollars from their trust account.

During the two-month period provided to purge their contempt, the defendants failed to produce the required financial documents or account for the missing funds, and one defendant traveled to Europe despite a court order prohibiting travel.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was deliberate, for personal gain, and showed no remorse.

Both defendants were sentenced to 30 days of incarceration to serve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant brought a motion for production of documents.

During a case conference, the respondents' counsel advised of a scheduling conflict and requested time to ascertain the position of third parties.

The court found the third parties' involvement unnecessary for the motion, adjourned the motion by one day to accommodate counsel's schedule, and set a timetable for the respondents' factum.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application to bring a motion for production of further documentation after discovering the respondents made payments to third parties following a previously ordered injunction.

The court scheduled the motion for production of documents and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.

The court also noted that if third parties consent, an order may be submitted to have the funds paid into court.

Rogers brought an Application seeking the return of $876,095.04 allegedly paid in error to the respondents.

At a case conference, the respondents objected to the presiding judge scheduling or hearing the Application, arguing the judge was acting as a case management judge under Rule 77.06.

The court held that Rule 77 did not apply but voluntarily declined to hear the Application.

The court proceeded to set a timetable for the Application and scheduled the respondents' motion to consolidate the Application with an existing action between the parties.

The plaintiff seller brought an action against the defendant buyer for forfeiture of a $250,000 deposit and damages after a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The buyer refused to close, alleging the seller failed to rectify an illegal third-floor residential conversion and a resulting city work order.

The buyer also brought a third-party claim against its real estate lawyer for professional negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the buyer intentionally orchestrated the work order for leverage and failed to properly requisition the issue within the contractual deadline.

The court held the transaction was not unconscionable, denied relief from forfeiture, awarded the seller the deposit plus $6,645 in out-of-pocket damages, and dismissed the third-party claim against the lawyer, finding he met the standard of a reasonably prudent solicitor.

A millwork contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for cabinetry and millwork supplied under a construction contract.

The project manager asserted set‑off for alleged deficiencies, replacement of a merchandising unit, and delay.

The court found the contractor had substantially performed the contract work and that deficiencies identified by the defendant were either minor or attributable to design changes or other trades.

Evidence established the failure of the merchandising unit to fit properly resulted from incorrect construction of a curved drywall wall by another trade rather than any fault of the contractor.

The defendant therefore failed to establish entitlement to set‑off or damages for delay, and judgment was granted for the full contract amount and authorized extras.

Following a prior decision partially granting amendments to a statement of defence while dismissing other relief, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, higher partial indemnity costs, arguing it was largely successful on the motion.

The court applied the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality under Rule 1.04(1), and the Court of Appeal guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than mirror actual expenses incurred.

Finding that the plaintiff achieved substantially greater success but that the motion was relatively straightforward, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs of $6,899 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded.

The defendants in a section 38 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act fraudulent conveyance action brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Defence, issue a third party claim, and discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Defence in part, allowing unopposed amendments and certain 'state of mind' amendments subject to strict discovery conditions.

The court refused leave for amendments related to limitations and solicitor negligence, finding them irrelevant or already decided.

The motion to issue a third party claim was dismissed as the proposed claims lacked a factual nexus to the main action.

The request to discharge the certificates of pending litigation was also dismissed because the certificates were reinstated by a Court of Appeal order, which the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to vary.

The defendants in a s. 38 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act fraudulent conveyance action brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Defence, issue a third party claim, and discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Defence in part, allowing unopposed amendments and 'state of mind' amendments on strict terms to prevent delay, but refused amendments related to limitations and solicitor's negligence.

The motion to issue a third party claim was dismissed as the proposed claims did not relate to the fraudulent conveyance action.

The motion to discharge the certificates of pending litigation was also dismissed because the certificates were reinstated by a Court of Appeal order, which the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to vary.

An investigative receiver sought court approval of its reports, activities, and fees incurred during an investigation into the financial affairs of a respondent corporation connected to bankrupt companies operating retirement homes.

The court found the receiver’s mandate report complied with the appointment order and approved the report and the activities described in it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the motion seeking approval of further receiver and counsel fees, arguing proportionality concerns and potential insolvency.

The court granted the adjournment on fairness grounds, allowing the respondent to file objections to the requested fees, while extending the receiver’s mandate.

The court also permitted the respondent to provide previously omitted bank statements to the receiver but held the receiver need not amend its report to account for them.