Adam Zur

The moving parties brought motions to quash appeals from an order authorizing a court-appointed Sales Officer to enter into agreements to separate joint venture interests in real estate projects as part of a corporate wind-up.

The Court of Appeal granted the motions to quash, finding that the order was interlocutory because it was a step in implementing the wind-up and sale process, not a final determination of substantive rights.

Furthermore, the Court held that the order was made pursuant to the Business Corporations Act, meaning any appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of Conway J. dated April 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to each of the responding parties, Sheldon Libfeld and Jay Libfeld.

The defendant, International Property Group (Toronto) Ltd., brought a motion to dismiss the action and its counterclaim, arguing that the litigation had settled when it purchased the subject property under a revised agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiffs, Bradley Archibald Sumarah and Robert Steven Andrew Clarke, disputed this, contending the subsequent sale was merely mitigation of damages from the aborted first transaction.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement, the primary terms of which included the revised sale, mutual releases, and dismissal of the litigation without costs.

The action and counterclaim were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract after an aborted real estate transaction.

The parties subsequently negotiated a revised agreement of purchase and sale, which eventually closed.

The plaintiffs later amended their claim, arguing the subsequent sale was merely in mitigation of damages and sought the difference in purchase price.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing the subsequent sale was part of a settlement agreement that resolved the litigation.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that the objective interpretation of the parties' communications and conduct demonstrated an intention to settle the litigation by reviving the transaction, exchanging mutual releases, and dismissing the claims without costs.

The action and counterclaim were dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

Andrew Henry Ting sought to set aside a single judge's decision denying leave to appeal a civil contempt finding related to his father's foreign bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, holding that a panel generally lacks jurisdiction to review a single appellate judge's decision on leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and even if jurisdiction existed, the motion lacked merit as the original decision was sound.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at an examination for discovery.

The refused questions sought production of an external law firm's unredacted fee accounts, investigation file, and unredacted board meeting minutes.

The defendants claimed solicitor-client privilege over the documents.

The court found that the law firm was retained to provide legal advice, making the investigation file privileged.

The court also held that the defendants did not waive privilege by producing the investigation report or by referring to the investigation in the plaintiff's termination letter.

The motion was dismissed.

An application for leave to appeal a contempt finding was dismissed.

The contempt finding arose from the applicant's failure to attend an examination in aid of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance to bankruptcy/insolvency practice or the administration of justice, lacked prima facie merit, and would unduly hinder the progress of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The issues raised included a refused recusal motion and the requirement of personal service for contempt proceedings.