Aaron Grossman

Following the successful motion by Suncity Development Ltd. to declare Alumtech Bond Inc.'s construction lien expired and dismiss the action, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that Alumtech's action was without merit based on its own pleadings and that it acted unreasonably by proceeding despite being notified of the expired lien.

Suncity was awarded $40,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The moving party, Suncity, brought a motion to declare the responding party's construction lien expired for failure to perfect within the 90-day period under the old Construction Act.

The responding party argued the new Construction Act applied, which would extend the perfection period to 150 days, claiming Suncity was an 'owner' rather than a 'contractor'.

The court relied on clear admissions in the responding party's statement of claim that Suncity was the general contractor and Epic was the sole owner.

Consequently, the old Construction Act applied, the lien was declared expired, and the action was dismissed.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a summary judgment motion to set aside two transactions made by the bankrupt prior to bankruptcy: the transfer of his half-interest in a residence to his spouse, and the transfer of preferred shares to a family-owned company.

The court found both transactions were transfers at undervalue and made with the intent to defeat creditors, constituting fraudulent conveyances and preferences under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The defendants' cross-motion arguing the claims were statute-barred was dismissed, as the limitation period commenced upon the Trustee's appointment.

In a CCAA proceeding involving a condominium project, the debtor sought to disclaim pre-sale agreements with unit purchasers.

The purchasers brought a motion for the production of an unredacted appraisal report referenced in the debtor's affidavit.

The court held that while the mandatory production requirement under Rule 30.04(2) is subject to discretion in CCAA proceedings, fairness and transparency required production of the unredacted report to the purchasers, subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

Cross-motions by a contingent creditor and real estate brokers for production of the reports were dismissed due to their lesser need and potential conflicts of interest.

The appellant estate appealed a trial judgment that found a funding option in a joint venture agreement for a condominium development to be legally unenforceable due to uncertainty.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's determination that the valuation date for the sale of the respondent's shares, ordered as an oppression remedy, should be the date of the trial reasons rather than the date the proceedings commenced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the funding option lacked essential terms and that the chosen valuation date was the fairest in the circumstances.

The moving party, a resident of the Netherlands, brought a motion to stay or dismiss a third-party claim against him, set aside service, and require the action to be commenced in the Netherlands or Ireland.

The claim arose from a loan agreement governed by the laws of the Netherlands.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the third-party claim, as the contract was made and performed outside Ontario and the moving party had no ties to the province.

The court also concluded that the Netherlands was the more appropriate forum and set aside the service ex juris under Rule 17.02.

The motion was granted and the third-party claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial under Rule 48.14.

The action involved allegations of fraudulent conveyance against the defendants, one of whom had declared bankruptcy.

The court applied a contextual approach, noting the existence of companion litigation on the Commercial List and the lack of prejudice to the defendants.

The court granted the extension, finding it would be a gross injustice to dismiss the matter on a procedural basis.

The bankrupt appealed a decision by the Registrar in Bankruptcy refusing to schedule his discharge application for a hearing before a Commercial List judge.

The Registrar had adjourned the hearing sine die pending the outcome of a separate action by the Trustee against the bankrupt's family for alleged preferential and fraudulent conveyances.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Registrar properly exercised her discretion by balancing the relevant factors, including prejudice, interests of the parties, and the summary nature of discharge hearings where fraud allegations should be established beforehand.