subsidiaries”) that own lands, in London, Oshawa and Waterloo
(the “shareholder lands”).
 The plaintiffs allege that Wayco improperly used
Schembrico’s profits from the joint venture to finance the redevelopment of the shareholder lands.
 After commencing the action, the plaintiffs brought a
motion before Roberts J. for the appointment of a receiver and
manager of the Triumph subsidiaries that were developing the
shareholder lands and for the delivery of documentation regarding the joint venture. Affidavits and cross-examinations on the
affidavits produced a significant amount of evidence for use on
 From both the cross-examinations, as well as from other
disclosures in the context of the motion, the plaintiffs learned
that $6 million of the profits from the joint venture had been
paid to a Way corporation, Premier Project Consultants Ltd.
 It was also revealed that $855,000 of the $6 million had
been directed to other Way corporations: 158170 Ontario Ltd.,
1604909 Ontario Inc., The Shores Ltd., Jameshill Developments
Ltd., The Spruce Street Lofts Inc. and Maple Hill Creek Apartments Inc. (the “Wayco beneficiaries”).
 Roberts J. appointed a receiver and manager of the
Triumph subsidiaries and ordered the production of all financial
documents relating to the joint venture. She did so after reviewing an extensive evidentiary record and on the basis of the
defendants’ acknowledgement that the plaintiffs had presented a
strong prima facie case against Mr. Way and the Way companies
“of serious financial and accounting irregularities and impropri-eties”. She noted that the defendants had not disputed the evidence presented by the plaintiffs:  O.J. No. 4873, 76 B.L.R.
(4th) 147 (S.C.J.), at para. 6.
 Based on this undisputed evidence, Roberts J. made a
number of significant findings of wrongdoing by Mr. Way and
the companies he controlled. For instance, she found that
Mr. Way had shuffled money around to his corporations, that he
had not complied fully with court-ordered production and he was
willing to manipulate figures and to ignore his accountant’s
 Following the motion, the plaintiffs sought to add a number of parties that they allege improperly received moneys from
the joint venture, including the Wayco beneficiaries, a trust controlled by Mr. Way (the “Way Family Trust” or “Trust”), as well
as Ms. Patterson who, as a director, officer and employee of a
number of Way companies, is alleged to have participated with