William Gilmour

The plaintiffs sought costs for their successful Fresh Evidence and Mareva Injunction motions against the Grillone Defendants, and the defendant Lisa Gatto sought costs for the Mareva Injunction motion that was withdrawn against her.

The court awarded Gatto $7,500 in partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiffs.

The court found the Grillone Defendants engaged in dishonourable conduct deserving of censure and awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs totaling $44,500, which included the amount the plaintiffs were ordered to pay Gatto.

The moving party sought to validate her marriage to an elderly man with worsening dementia, which was challenged by the responding party, the man's son.

The son had previously obtained a guardianship order in the wife's absence and alleged the marriage was predatory.

The court found that the son failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his father lacked the capacity to marry on the date of the wedding.

The court placed little weight on retrospective expert assessments and relied on direct evidence of the couple's long-term relationship and the father's understanding of the marriage.

The marriage was declared valid, and the son was ordered to pay $50,000 in full indemnity costs due to his egregious conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants to freeze their assets pending the resolution of an action for recovery of nearly $1.9 million in loan monies.

After the motion was argued, the plaintiffs sought leave to introduce fresh evidence regarding the defendants' attempts to sell property and hide assets.

The court granted leave to admit the fresh evidence, finding it could not have been discovered with due diligence and was highly relevant to the risk of asset dissipation.

The court granted the Mareva injunction in part, ordering a freezing of the defendants' assets and disclosure of their worldwide assets, finding a strong prima facie case of misrepresentation and misappropriation.