Alden Christian

The appellant, Joanne Sicotte, appealed a motion judge's decision that dismissed her summary judgment motion on a commercial mortgage guarantee and instead granted summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by conflating the primary debt with the guarantee obligations and misinterpreting "owing" versus "enforceable" debt.

The appeal was allowed, the lower order set aside, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the appellant against the guarantors.

The trustee applied for an order approving the debtor's Division 1 proposal.

The debtor sought an adjournment to object to the trustee's remuneration and to expunge a creditor's proof of claim.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the debtor had ample opportunity to challenge the claim earlier and that the bankruptcy proceedings had already been excessively delayed.

The court approved the proposal, finding its terms reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.

The Licensed Insolvency Trustee brought four motions seeking court approval for advances of remuneration in four ordinary administration bankruptcies prior to obtaining a Letter of Comment from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) and proceeding to taxation.

The OSB opposed the motions, arguing they were premature and contrary to jurisprudence.

The court granted the motions in part, allowing an advance of 75% of the fees earned to date, noting that OSB Directive 27R permits court approval of advances and that the COVID-19 pandemic created exceptional cash flow challenges for trustees operating as essential services.

The applicant tenant brought an urgent application under the Commercial Tenancies Act regarding a dispute over additional rent and a threatened eviction.

The court found the cited sections inapplicable but utilized the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid technical irregularities.

The court ordered the tenant to pay base rent plus an estimated amount for additional rent and arrears to avoid eviction, directed the landlord to provide an architect's certificate and actual figures, and converted the matter to a Rule 14 application.

The bankrupt, a 72-year-old self-employed businessman with significant tax debts, applied for a discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Canada Revenue Agency and the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in unjustifiable extravagance and had structured his affairs through a family trust to artificially lower his income.

The court granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $100,000 to the Trustee for the benefit of his creditors.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy appealed a Registrar's decision that allowed a secured claim by Snap Auto Finance Corp. The Trustee had initially disallowed Snap's claim, arguing that Snap failed to perfect its security interest in a vehicle within the timeframes required by Ontario's Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) after the vehicle was brought into Ontario.

The Registrar found the vehicle had not been "brought in" to Ontario.

The Superior Court found the Registrar erred by not considering the debtor's assignment in bankruptcy in Ontario and his sworn Statement of Affairs, which indicated Ontario residency.

The Court concluded the vehicle was "brought in" to Ontario in November 2015, and Snap failed to perfect its security interest within the statutory 60 days or 15 days of notice.

The Trustee's appeal was allowed, restoring the disallowance of Snap's secured claim, making Snap's interest subordinate to the Trustee's.

The defendant brought a motion to stay a defamation action, arguing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction or that another forum was more convenient.

The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, sued the defendant, a Quebec resident, over blog posts accessible in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test, finding that the tort of defamation crystallizes where the material is read.

Since the blog was accessed and republished via Twitter in Ontario, the tort was committed in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the defendant failed to show another forum was clearly more appropriate.

A creditor applied under s. 37 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to vary a trustee’s decision not to realize on a bankrupt’s residential property, which initially had negative equity but later increased in value prior to discharge.

The court considered whether post‑bankruptcy increases in real property equity constituted after‑acquired property divisible among creditors.

The court held that increases in equity prior to discharge generally vest in the trustee for the benefit of creditors unless the trustee has formally divested the property.

However, because the bankrupt relied on representations from the trustee and continued making mortgage payments that reduced principal, equitable considerations applied.

The bankrupt was credited for principal reduction on the mortgage, while the creditor was entitled to the remaining increase in equity beyond the original appraisal.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment regarding a 1994 promissory note, arguing the trial judge failed to consider a 1983 agreement, a cancellation clause, the appropriate interest rate, and the principle of proportionality in costs.

The plaintiff cross-appealed on interest and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the note was clear on its face, the cancellation clause was inapplicable due to prior default, and the trial judge made no reversible error in exercising discretion over interest and costs.