Yixin Wang

The corporate defendants, CYD Investment Inc. and CY Capital Inc., brought a motion to dissolve a Mareva injunction granted ex parte against all defendants in a fraud action.

The plaintiff alleged the corporate defendants were vehicles for a co-defendant's fraudulent scheme involving private mortgage lending.

The court found that the more developed evidentiary record undermined two key factual underpinnings of the Mareva order: the strong prima facie case that the co-defendant controlled the corporate defendants, and the finding of a real risk of asset dissipation.

The balance of convenience also favoured dissolution given sufficient assets remained under other injunctions to satisfy the claim.

The Mareva injunction was dissolved against the corporate defendants, with a reference ordered for damages and costs awarded in their favour.

A corporate purchaser of titanium and ferro metals sued a corporate officer personally for fraudulent misrepresentation after paying for multiple shipments that were never delivered.

The court found that by sending bills of lading, booking notices, packing lists, and related documents, the defendant represented that product had departed the factory or was ready for immediate shipment upon payment, and that those representations were false for the relevant shipments.

The court held that the defendant acted recklessly, not merely carelessly, because he was copied on extensive communications showing chronic shipping failures and nevertheless continued demanding payment while closing his eyes to obvious problems.

Reliance was established only for the later shipments after the purchaser's understanding of the shipping documents was clarified.

Liability was found, but damages, interest, and costs were left for further submissions.

The appellant software company appealed the dismissal of its claim that the respondent breached a distribution agreement by copying the features and functionality of its software to create a derivative work.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings that no copying occurred and that the respondent's use of a marketing presentation was authorized.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of an omnibus package of documents under the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule and the exclusion of an expert report that lacked necessity.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses three motions: the defendants' motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, the defendants' motion to lift a Mareva injunction against two defendants, and the defendants' motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no direct adverse legal interests and that the "bright line rule" did not apply.

The motion to lift the Mareva injunction was also dismissed, as the court found evidence of co-mingled funds implicating the defendants.

However, the motion to discharge the CPL was granted, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an interest in the property, which was acquired prior to the investment relationship.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her for failing to maintain the cleanliness of her rental unit.

The tenant argued the Board erred by failing to consider the landlord's failure to repair her refrigerator, which she claimed forced her to store food in her bathtub.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant did not exercise diligence in pursuing the appeal and failed to raise a genuine question of law under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as her proposed appeal merely challenged the Board's factual findings and weighing of evidence.

The appellant purchased a restaurant from the respondent and subsequently sued for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the restaurant's revenues.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no misrepresentation and stating the appellant should have verified the actual sales receipts provided to her.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by ignoring formal admissions regarding the revenue representations and by improperly relying on the appellant's lack of due diligence as a defence to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendant, TD Waterhouse Canada Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, Zhe Chen, alleged negligence by TD Waterhouse regarding margin account management, foreign exchange losses, trading restrictions, and incorrect tax reporting (T-5008 forms) which led to an erroneous CRA assessment.

The court found that the contractual agreements entitled TD Waterhouse to manage accounts as it did, without notice, and that there was no misrepresentation or breach of good faith.

Regarding the tax issue, while TD Waterhouse may have breached a statutory duty by not filling in cost information on T-5008 forms, it provided a CRA-approved T-5008 Summary with all necessary information.

The court found no basis to establish a duty of care for the foreseeable harm caused by the plaintiff's accountant's bad advice or the plaintiff's failure to file tax returns.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action.