Medjuck v. Medjuck

Medjuck v. Medjuck

Judge found, on detailed documentary and oral evidence, that the plaintiff was not impecunious, that a revocable trust was used as a sham to shield approximately $750,000 and that the plaintiff has a matrimonial interest in a valuable unencumbered home; given the plaintiff's non‑residency, the credible evidence of available assets and attempts to conceal wealth, fairness required security for costs, and $100,000 was ordered to be posted before further steps.

Citation
2021 NSSC 269
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Harold L. Medjuck; Defendant/applicant: Hedda Medjuck (in her capacity as Executrix of the Estate of the late Franklyn D. Medjuck, Q.C.); Defendant/applicant: Medjuck and Medjuck, A Law Firm; Defendant/applicant: Ralph M. Medjuck, Q.C.; Defendant/applicant: 51/56 Investments Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Motion (security for Costs)
Outcome
Motion allowed. Plaintiff ordered to post security for costs of CAD 100,000 before further steps in the litigation; costs of CAD 5,000 awarded to defendants in specified allocations.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Revocable Trust, Fraudulent Transfer/sham Trust, Matrimonial Property, Case Management
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Trusts Equity Costs Security for Costs Impecuniosity Revocable Trust Fraudulent Transfer/sham Trust +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold L. Medjuck

Plaintiff/respondent

Hedda Medjuck (in her capacity as Executrix of the Estate of the late Franklyn D. Medjuck, Q.C.)

Defendant/applicant

Medjuck and Medjuck, A Law Firm

Defendant/applicant

Ralph M. Medjuck, Q.C.

Defendant/applicant

51/56 Investments Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Motion (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 45 grounds are established to order security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is impecunious such that an order would be unfair
  3. 3 Whether a revocable trust and the matrimonial home can be treated as the plaintiff's assets for security purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found, on detailed documentary and oral evidence, that the plaintiff was not impecunious, that a revocable trust was used as a sham to shield approximately $750,000 and that the plaintiff has a matrimonial interest in a valuable unencumbered home; given the plaintiff's non‑residency, the credible evidence of available assets and attempts to conceal wealth, fairness required security for costs, and $100,000 was ordered to be posted before further steps.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed. Plaintiff ordered to post security for costs of CAD 100,000 before further steps in the litigation; costs of CAD 5,000 awarded to defendants in specified allocations.

Orders

  • Plaintiff must post CAD 100,000 as security for costs with the Court before any further steps in these proceedings (including the case management meeting scheduled for October 12, 2021), unless posted earlier as specified by the Judge.
  • If security is not posted the defendants may move for dismissal consistent with Rule 45.04(3).