An Ontario Superior Court Justice has clarified the precise meaning of a temporary court order, ruling that the word “maintain” required a group of defendants to freeze up to $200,000 already in their lawyers’ trust accounts, but did not force them to deposit new funds if the accounts were empty1. The decision, released on October 29, 2025, by Justice Lemay, resolves a significant dispute that had emerged in a lawsuit concerning a failed real estate investment.
The underlying legal action began on February 28, 2025, when a numbered company, 2246733 (2010) Ontario Ltd., filed a claim seeking the return of a $200,000 capital contribution it made to a real estate development known as the Mayfield Partnership. The plaintiff alleges it was promised that its capital would be returned once monies from a separate, previous litigation involving the development’s partners were paid out of court. According to the plaintiff, those events transpired, but the $200,000 was never returned.
The lawsuit names two distinct groups of defendants. The first, referred to as the “Mayfield Defendants,” includes Surinder Ahuja and several corporations (Ahuja Holdings Inc., Arcadeium Development Corp., and Mayfield Arcadeium Holdings Ltd.). Mr. Ahuja is described as the directing mind of Mayfield, which was the general partner in the real estate venture. The second group, the “Gandhi Defendants” (Harsimrat Gandhi and Aarav Holdings Ltd.), had been involved in previous, separate litigation against the Mayfield Defendants and were sued by the plaintiff due to their alleged involvement in the development.
The dispute over the court order began in August 2025. The plaintiff learned that monies from the separate litigation, which it believed were earmarked for its repayment, might have been paid out by Mayfield to the Gandhi Defendants. This raised concerns that the funds were being “dissipated,” or spent, which would make it impossible for the plaintiff to recover its investment even if it won the lawsuit.
This fear prompted the plaintiff to seek an urgent and immediate ex parte motion, a legal step taken without notifying the opposing parties due to the perceived emergency. The motion was heard by Justice Lemay on September 9, 2025. The plaintiff asked the court for an order under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the Mayfield Defendants to pay $200,000 into court for safekeeping.
Justice Lemay did not grant the full relief requested. Instead of ordering the money paid into court, he issued a temporary order requiring the preservation of funds in the trust accounts of the lawyers for both the Mayfield and Gandhi Defendants. He then adjourned the matter to October 2, 2025, to allow the defendants, who had not been present, an opportunity to be served with the materials and move to set the order aside.
Before that hearing could take place, counsel for the Mayfield Defendants contacted the court, advising that a serious disagreement had arisen over the meaning of the September 9th order. The plaintiff took the position that the order required the Mayfield Defendants to “maintain” the sum of $200,000 in their lawyers’ trust accounts, which, in the plaintiff’s view, meant they had to deposit that amount even if the trust accounts did not currently hold that much money. The Mayfield Defendants argued for a different interpretation: that the order only required them to maintain (or freeze) the money if it was already in the trust account. The Gandhi Defendants, in turn, argued that the order should not apply to them at all.
This disagreement led to a further appearance before Justice Lemay on October 16, 2025. To resolve the interpretive dispute, the judge ordered an expedited transcript of the September 9th hearing and provided it to all parties. A final hearing to argue the scope of the order was scheduled and held on October 24, 2025.
In his reasons for judgment, Justice Lemay first addressed procedural matters for moving the main lawsuit forward. The parties had agreed on a timetable, but a dispute remained regarding the production of documents. The plaintiff expressed concern that the defendants would not provide sufficient records in their Affidavits of Documents (a sworn list of all relevant documents) and had scheduled a motion for November 18, 2025, to address this. The defendants argued this motion was premature, as the affidavits were not yet due. Justice Lemay accepted points from both sides, determining that while the affidavits must be completed first, any substantial deficiencies should be addressed before discoveries (formal questioning) begin in mid-January. He scheduled a new appearance for December 3, 2025, at which time he will determine if a motion for better document production is necessary before discoveries proceed.
The judge then turned to the scope of his September 9th order. The question of whether the order applied to the Gandhi Defendants was resolved on consent. The plaintiff correctly conceded that its original motion was aimed at the Mayfield Defendants, who were the general partner responsible for the business. Justice Lemay agreed and clarified that the order does not apply to the Gandhi Defendants.
The central issue remained: the meaning of the word “maintain” as applied to the Mayfield Defendants. The relevant clause in the order stated that the defendants, “personally or through their counsel… maintain $200,000 in the trust account of their lawyers.” The plaintiff argued this language required the money to be placed into the account and kept there. The Mayfield Defendants argued it only required them to keep what was already present.
Justice Lemay accepted the Mayfield Defendants’ position. He based his decision on three primary factors. First, he analyzed the text of the order itself. Citing the Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he noted the definition of “maintain” is “cause or enable (a condition or state of affairs) to continue” or “keep at the same level or rate.” It does not, he found, require the addition of something new. He ruled that the wording “personally or through their counsel” simply prohibited either the client or the lawyer from moving funds out of the account.
Second, the judge considered the context of the original motion. He pointed out that the plaintiff had explicitly asked for an order forcing the defendants to pay $200,000 into court. He had specifically denied that relief. Justice Lemay reasoned that if he had intended to force the defendants to deposit funds that were not already in their lawyers’ possession, there would have been no reason to deny the plaintiff’s original request. Granting the plaintiff’s interpretation of “maintain” would effectively grant the very relief he had previously refused.
Third, Justice Lemay relied heavily on the transcript of the September 9th hearing. The transcript confirmed that he had two major concerns with the plaintiff’s original request: that it might be an improper “enforcement before judgment” and that it might interfere with the general partner’s discretion to run its business. His solution at the time was a compromise: a temporary order to freeze monies already held in trust to address the “possibility of the dissipation of assets.” The transcript also revealed that the plaintiff’s counsel had specifically advised the court that she believed the money was currently being held in trust by the defendants’ lawyers. Justice Lemay found this to be strong evidence that the order was only ever intended to maintain what was already paid, not to compel a new payment.
Ultimately, Justice Lemay concluded that the order does not require the Mayfield Defendants to deposit any new monies into their lawyer’s trust account. It simply requires that if such funds are deposited, they are to be maintained there, up to the $200,000 limit, pending further court consideration.
The judge provided final directions, keeping the November 18, 2025, date available. He ordered that if any party wishes to bring a new motion for relief regarding the funds, they must serve their materials by November 5th. He also set a strict timetable for all parties to make written submissions on who should pay the legal costs associated with the motion for clarification.
Read more about real estate cases in Canada here.
