Vincent Ross Ignatius Morrison

Following the dismissal of a motion by the defendants to dissolve a Mareva injunction, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $22,170.43 inclusive of disbursements and HST, while the defendants argued the amount should be reduced to $15,000.

The court rejected the defendants’ criticisms of the time spent by plaintiffs’ counsel, noting the absence of comparative information about defence counsel hours and characterizing the challenge as unsupported.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that a costs award of $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST was appropriate.

The moving defendants were ordered to pay the amount within 30 days, failing which the receiver was authorized to pay the award and charge it to the receiver accounts.

The defendants moved to set aside earlier ex parte orders granting a Mareva injunction and appointing a receiver over corporate assets allegedly used to shield property from enforcement of a substantial fraud judgment.

They argued that changed circumstances following a partial appellate reduction of the judgment, the alleged inadequacy of the plaintiffs’ undertaking as to damages, delay in prosecuting the action, and the balance of convenience justified dissolving the orders.

The court held that although the Court of Appeal reduced and modified aspects of the original fraud judgment, the defendant remained liable for over $12 million and the underlying factual basis for asset preservation had not materially changed.

The court also rejected arguments concerning the undertaking as to damages and delay, noting the extensive appellate proceedings that reasonably delayed progress.

The Mareva injunction and receivership orders therefore remained justified to preserve assets pending trial.

Following release of reasons in a prior motion, the court invited submissions on costs.

The plaintiff and defendants consented that the costs of the motion would be assessed by the trial judge in the cause rather than determined immediately.

Two non-parties involved in the motion waived any entitlement to costs.

The court ordered that no costs were payable to those non-parties.

The defendants sought relief from a non-disclosure agreement and production of documents and financial statements to support a pleaded defence in a debt action.

The responding party and non-parties resisted production on relevance grounds and requested confidentiality protection if disclosure were ordered.

The court held the pleaded defence raised issues making the requested materials relevant and ordered production.

Applying the Sierra Club framework, the court granted a sealing order over the NDA documents and financial statements, limited to preserve openness and subject to reconsideration by the trial judge.