Thrive Capital Management Ltd. v. Noble 1324 Queen Inc.
THRIVE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD.
THRIVE UPLANDS LTD.
2699010 ONTARIO INC.
2699011 ONTARIO INC.
NOBLE 1324 QUEEN INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
MICHAEL HYMAN
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Lorne Sabsay

GIUSEPPE ANASTASIO
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Lorne Sabsay

DAVID BOWEN
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
HAMPSHIRE AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Lorne Sabsay

LISA SUSAN ANASTASIO
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
RAJEREE ETWAROO CON-STRADA CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
NOBLE DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
The case of Thrive Capital Management Ltd. v. Noble 1324 Queen Inc., which was dated February 28, 2023, involved Thrive Capital Management Ltd. and its affiliated entities (the plaintiffs), who had sought a default judgment against Michael Hyman, Hampshire and Associates Incorporated, and Giuseppe Anastasio (the "Developer Defendants"). The plaintiffs had alleged that the Developer Defendants had misappropriated $9 million in connection with two real estate projects: the Spring Valley Project in Brampton and the Uplands Project in Richmond Hill. On September 20, 2022, a hearing had been scheduled for the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, while the Developer Defendants had requested additional time to demonstrate compliance and seek leave to file their defenses. The court had provided guidance, emphasizing the need for evidence regarding the funds' usage. The Developer Defendants had been sentenced to jail but had been given an opportunity to file defenses if they had purged their contempt. They had claimed they had done so, leading to a motion to set aside their noting in default and seek leave to file defenses. Ultimately, the court had dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and had granted the Developer Defendants' motion to set aside the noting in default and file defenses. The Developer Defendants had been given 30 days to deliver their Statements of Defense. The court had warned of limited tolerance for future defaults and had imposed obligations regarding compliance with discovery rules. No costs had been awarded for these motions.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-20-00639748-00CL
Civil litigation
Defendant