William Murray

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the Lin Defendants for failing to comply with previous court orders, including a Mareva injunction, which required them to provide affidavits of assets, submit to examinations under oath, and provide a monthly accounting.

The Lin Defendants failed to attend the examinations, failed to provide the required information, and could not be located.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court issued a declaration of breach, struck the Lin Defendants' pleadings, froze their assets without allowance for business expenses, and set a timetable for the plaintiffs to move for default judgment.

This endorsement addresses a return of a matter concerning limitations on a Mareva injunction and living expenses.

Despite previous opportunities, no evidence was filed by the parties.

The Wei defendants did not seek any limitations.

Counsel for the Lin defendants reported difficulties obtaining instructions, non-compliance with court orders (affidavit, cross-examinations, costs), and a potential conflict of interest between Ms. Shinchi and Mr. Lin.

The plaintiffs highlighted the Lin defendants' continued non-compliance and alleged deliberate avoidance of asset disclosure.

The court ordered the Lin defendants to provide their address for personal service within seven days, failing which substituted service for a contempt motion via email was authorized.

The court declined to schedule further return dates for Mareva injunction issues and reserved costs.

This endorsement follows a Mareva injunction order, addressing outstanding issues of asset disclosure, living and business operating expenses, and limitations to the injunction.

The court ordered the Lin Defendants to attend examinations on their assets within two weeks, validated service on them as of November 15, 2022, and directed them to file a Statement of Defence within 30 days.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the parties were ordered to re-attend to finalize limitations and expenses.

The court also addressed the potential sale of two Bentley vehicles held overseas.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Mareva injunction motion brought by the Plaintiffs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants due to their reprehensible conduct, including the filing of a false affidavit by one defendant, and the overall lack of merit in the defence presented by both groups of defendants, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The court emphasized the complexity of the case, the Plaintiffs' complete success, and the reasonable foreseeability of a significant costs order.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The parties returned to court to address alleged deficiencies in the defendants' asset disclosure affidavits, requests for living and business operating expenses, and potential limits on the injunction.

The court found the defendants' affidavits deficient and ordered further and better affidavits with supporting documentation.

The court also granted interim interim orders allowing specific monthly amounts for living and business operating expenses, but found it premature to limit the scope of the Mareva injunction until complete asset information was provided.

The plaintiffs, Li Yang (Canada) Holdings Co. Ltd. and Daniel Executive (Canada) Holdings Corp., sought a Mareva injunction against multiple defendants involved in an alleged multi-layered fraud scheme concerning luxury vehicle exports.

The court found a strong prima facie case for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy against the Lin Defendants (LYSR Management Ltd., 2708042 Ontario Inc., 2786584 Ontario Inc., Rina Shinchi, Yangguang Lin) and the Zheng Defendants (Wei Zheng, Location Way Inc.).

The court also found a real risk of asset dissipation, noting the defendants' fraudulent conduct and attempts to mislead.

The motion was dismissed against Zi Mu Li and Renxiangyu Zhang due to insufficient evidence.

The Mareva injunction was granted against the remaining defendants to prevent asset dissipation.

The applicant wife sought an order striking the respondent husband's pleadings or compelling disclosure and an expert meeting.

The respondent husband sought to vary a spousal support order and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the wife's request to strike pleadings and her expert meeting request, but ordered reciprocal questioning with experts present.

The husband's motion to vary spousal support was dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or compelling evidence to warrant a variation of the temporary order.

The matrimonial home sale was resolved by consent.

The court declined to award costs to the wife, finding her rejection of expert collaboration unreasonable.

The applicant sought remedies under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, alleging the respondent operated their jointly owned bubble tea franchise corporations in an oppressive manner.

The applicant claimed she was excluded from management, denied financial information, and that the respondent misappropriated business opportunities.

The respondent denied the allegations and alternatively sought an order for the sale of the applicant's shares without a finding of oppression.

The court found numerous material facts in dispute, credibility issues, and a need for expert evidence regarding management fees and residency status.

Consequently, the court ordered the issues raised in the application to proceed to trial and declined to order a sale of shares on the current record.

Appeal from a trial judgment in a fraudulent conveyance action.

The trial judge found the appellants liable for participating in a civil conspiracy to defraud the respondent and to prevent her from realizing on a judgment against one of the defendants.

The trial judge awarded judgment against one defendant in the amount of $175,000 and against two other defendants in the amount of $60,000.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the scope of the proceedings, the facts concerning monies received, and their distribution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the conspiracy finding was supported by the record and that the trial judge had broad remedial authority under the applicable legislation.

The applicant sought spousal support, property division, and a restraining order following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The respondent claimed the marriage was a sham entered into solely for immigration purposes and sought a divorce and unequal division of net family property.

The court found the marriage was not a sham, determined the date of separation to be March 23, 2013, and resolved various property disputes including the valuation of a business, foreign property, and a disputed bare trust over a home.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment and lump sum spousal support, and issued a non-communication order.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 21, 2018, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant argued that he no longer posed a significant danger to public safety due to improved insight into his mental illness, medication compliance, and stable employment and housing.

However, the court found the Board's concerns about recent cocaine use were reasonable given the appellant's history of manic episodes preceded by cocaine use and associated medication non-compliance.

The court allowed the appeal on the basis of transcription errors in the Board's reasons, which confused the appellant with another hospital patient and relied on irrelevant material.

A new hearing was ordered to take place as the appellant's annual review hearing in February 2019.

The plaintiff sought to enforce an unpaid oppression judgment against the defendant Daniel Xiao by bringing a fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy action against him, his former wife, and her parents.

The court found that the defendants fraudulently conveyed a Toronto property to the parents and subsequently used the proceeds and other funds to purchase a Vancouver property in the wife's name to defeat the plaintiff's claims.

The court rejected the defendants' laches defence, finding no acquiescence or irredeemable prejudice despite a lengthy delay.

The court allowed the tracing of funds and awarded judgments of $60,000 against the parents and $175,000 against the former wife.

The applicant, a former business seller, sought relief against the respondents for fraudulent conveyance and oppression.

The original purchaser (216) defaulted on payments, leading to a default judgment against it.

Subsequently, the principal of 216, through his wife (Hee Kyung Shin), incorporated a new company (222) which took over the business and assets from 216 without consideration, while 216 was stripped of value.

The court found several "badges of fraud" surrounding the transfer of the business, indicating an intent to defraud creditors.

The court also determined that the actions of the officers and directors of 216 and 222 were oppressive and unfairly prejudiced the applicant as a creditor.

The plaintiff sought return of a commercial lease deposit after an agreement to lease premises for a spa/fitness centre failed because the proposed use, which included massage services, was not permitted under existing zoning.

The lease contained a condition requiring the tenant to obtain the necessary licence within four months.

The court held that the intended use included massage services and therefore required a holistic centre licence, which could not be obtained because zoning did not permit that use at the relevant time.

The landlord had warranted zoning compliance and was therefore in breach when the agreement was executed.

The court rejected arguments that the tenant misrepresented the intended use, waived the condition, or was estopped from relying on it, and ordered return of the deposit.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for the repayment of allegedly improper invoices for engineering services.

The court found the defendant's explanations for failing to defend the action and for the five-month delay in bringing the motion to be unacceptable and lacking credibility.

However, noting that the defendant had a weak but arguable defence on the merits, the court exercised its discretion to allow the default judgment to be set aside, but only on the strict condition that the defendant pay the full judgment amount plus $10,000 as security for costs into court within 30 days.