Tom Macintosh Zheng

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful motion for default judgment brought by the defendant Joseph Gavin Briggs against the plaintiffs Joe Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. Briggs was awarded $45,285.00 in damages on his counterclaim.

The court, applying factors under Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, found the plaintiffs' obstructive conduct increased litigation costs and that Alessandro had abused Briggs' trust.

The court also affirmed that costs may be awarded even when counsel acts pro bono.

Briggs was awarded $15,000.00 in costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found them jointly and severally liable for $120,000 plus prejudgment interest to the respondent.

The appeal primarily focused on the personal liability of one appellant under a personal guarantee related to a joint venture agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the case was suitable for summary judgment despite being a simplified procedure action, and upholding the validity and enforceability of the personal guarantee, which imposed personal liability.

The defendants, Mattamy Corporation, brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiffs, Wendy Wang and W. Li, to attend an examination in aid of execution to collect outstanding costs totaling $22,282.84 from previous successful motions and appeals.

The plaintiffs, who were self-represented, had refused to attend prior examinations or pay the costs, attempting to re-litigate the merits of their original action.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' procedural objections and, despite reservations about proportionality given the relatively small amount and the concluded nature of the underlying litigation, granted the order compelling the plaintiffs' attendance.

The decision was influenced by the plaintiffs' defiance of court orders and their continued pursuit of the same issues in other forums.

However, the defendants' request for costs of the current motion was denied due to their failure to serve a costs outline on the plaintiffs as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs sought an urgent interim Mareva injunction and ancillary orders against the Defendants without notice, alleging a complex fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of over $1.7 million.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, inferred a serious risk of asset dissipation given the nature of the fraud and the defendants' prior conduct, and determined that irreparable harm would occur if the injunction was not granted.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, and the Plaintiffs provided the necessary undertaking as to damages.

Ancillary disclosure orders and preservation orders for electronic devices were also granted.

The plaintiff, Dymon Storage Corporation, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, including its former Chief Planner and its former architects, from working for a competitor and from misusing confidential information.

The defendant Edwards brought a cross-motion to strike or stay the claim against her in favour of arbitration.

The court dismissed the non-competition injunction, finding Edwards' non-competition covenant unreasonably broad and unenforceable, and finding no evidence of an oral non-competition agreement with the architect defendants.

The court partially granted the confidentiality injunction, ordering the architect defendants to surrender documents relating to an epoxy floor system and certain architectural drawings, but otherwise found the plaintiff failed to distinguish between confidential information and general know-how.

The court stayed the claim against Edwards in favour of arbitration pursuant to her employment agreement.

The plaintiffs brought an interlocutory motion for injunctive relief against the defendants regarding the solicitation of dental clients and a non-compete clause.

Following the hearing of the motion, the court issued an interim order enjoining the defendants from soliciting clients of the dental centre and prohibiting one of the defendants from practicing dentistry within a 5-kilometre radius until the final decision on the interlocutory motion is released.