3 total
Retention of pledged shares satisfied debt and discharged guarantors.
The moving defendants sought summary dismissal of an action to enforce personal guarantees associated with a corporate loan secured by pledged shares.
The lender had seized and retained the pledged shares following default and asserted rights as shareholder rather than selling the collateral.
The court found that the lender elected to retain the shares “in satisfaction of the debt,” thereby extinguishing the underlying obligation and releasing the guarantors.
In the alternative, the lender’s conduct in refusing a reasonable purchase offer, delaying enforcement, and materially altering the risk without notice discharged the guarantors.
Although the limitation defence failed because the guarantee was a demand obligation and the limitation period began only upon demand, the action against the guarantors was dismissed on the other grounds.
Bankruptcy does not bar punishment for pre-bankruptcy contempt of court.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendant was in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order requiring attendance and full disclosure at a judgment debtor examination.
The defendant argued that his subsequent assignment in bankruptcy stayed the contempt proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The court held that bankruptcy does not prevent punishment for contempt committed prior to the bankruptcy and relied on prior authority confirming that such proceedings may continue.
After hearing evidence, the court rejected the defendant’s testimony as not credible and found that he deliberately refused to provide candid answers and failed to produce required documents.
The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally disobeyed the court order.
Carrier liable for delayed pickup of perishable shipment but damages reduced for failure to mitigate.
A trucking company sued for unpaid transport invoices relating to produce shipments from U.S. airports to Ontario.
The produce wholesaler counterclaimed alleging that a delayed pickup of a pepper shipment caused spoilage and significant loss in value.
The court found the carrier liable for breach of contract because it failed to pick up the perishable shipment within the agreed timeframe, making the resulting spoilage foreseeable.
However, the wholesaler failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate its losses after the delay became apparent.
Liability for the losses was therefore apportioned equally between the parties, resulting in a net judgment in favour of the wholesaler after set‑off against the unpaid invoices.
