Aaron Zelman Landers Gideon

The creditor successfully brought a motion under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay to pursue fraud claims against the bankrupt.

The bankrupt opposed the motion for four years using delay tactics before consenting on the eve of the hearing.

The court awarded the creditor costs on a substantial indemnity scale, finding the bankrupt's conduct improper and unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The bankrupt was ordered to pay $25,665.52 in costs, which the court noted would survive any discharge.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering repayment of funds advanced by the respondent and dismissing the appellants' counterclaim for defamation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's grant of summary judgment on the loan claim, his rejection of the non est factum defence, or his dismissal of the defamation counterclaim.

However, the court found that the issue of reverse corporate veil piercing to impose liability on the corporate appellants was not properly before the motion judge and may not have been fairly argued.

The appeal was allowed in part: the judgment against the corporate appellants was set aside and remitted for redetermination, but dismissed in all other respects.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $6,000 to the responding parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages for breach of contract and tortious interference with economic relations arising from an alleged employment agreement.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the employment agreement was a sham drafted solely to assist the plaintiff in securing a mortgage, and that the true relationship was governed by an independent contractor agreement.

The court found that the issues were inextricably intertwined with the defendants' counterclaim and that central credibility issues required a full trial record.

Consequently, the court dismissed the motion for partial summary judgment and ordered submissions on costs.

The applicant sought to set aside the deceased's last will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, and to compel the respondent to pass accounts and be removed as estate trustee.

The court dismissed the application, finding no suspicious circumstances, testamentary capacity, or undue influence.

The court also declined to order a formal passing of accounts or the removal of the estate trustee, concluding that the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary thresholds for his claims.