Trang Nguyen

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), arguing there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award.

The court found the defendant failed to meet the initial low threshold, as the plaintiff's representative was never asked directly about the corporation's assets or financial statements during discovery.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of unjust enrichment and a constructive trust against properties owned by the defendants, after $750,000 was fraudulently obtained by one defendant and deposited into the corporate account of another.

The court considered whether the recipient defendant's knowledge of the fraud was relevant to the unjust enrichment claim.

The court held that while the plaintiff does not have to prove knowledge, the defendant's lack of knowledge is relevant evidence for the defence of juristic reason.

A mini-trial was ordered to determine the defendant's knowledge and whether a juristic reason existed.