Yigal Rifkind

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim and to add defendants.

The parties agreed to argue two preliminary issues: whether to validate service of the original statement of claim, and whether the limitation period for certain claims was governed by the Real Property Limitations Act (RPLA) or the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court validated service on all defendants except Sundeep Gupta, who had never been served.

The court found that the claims against the Schedule C and D companies sought constructive trusts and tracing of profits into land, and were thus governed by the 10-year limitation period under the RPLA.

The claims against the Schedule E company sought damages simpliciter and were governed by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order granting a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a residential rental property.

The plaintiff had claimed a 50% shareholder interest in the corporate owner of the property but provided no documentary evidence.

The court found no triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the property.

Furthermore, the court discharged the CPL on the grounds of material non-disclosure and misleading evidence presented by the plaintiff during the ex parte motion, specifically regarding an undisclosed caution and false claims of mortgage default.