Allan Merskey

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the defendants successfully obtained a reduction in the quantum of a lien claim, though the lien itself was not discharged.

Both the plaintiff and the defendants sought costs, claiming success.

The court found that there was divided success on the underlying motion and noted the parties' failure to make bona fide efforts to settle costs.

Considering the proportionality, complexity, and importance of the issues, as well as the excessive hours and rates claimed by both parties, the court determined that a fit and just costs order was for each side to bear its own costs.

This is a construction lien action where the Defendants/Moving Parties sought an order discharging the lien or, in the alternative, reducing the security posted by Greatwise Developments Ltd. The Plaintiff agreed to a reduction of $250,000 due to an overlooked payment.

The court found significant factual disputes regarding whether the contract was fixed-price or cost-plus, and whether the Plaintiff abandoned the project, deeming these triable issues.

However, based on admitted errors and non-lienable items identified by the Defendants, the court ordered a further reduction of the security posted.

The motion to discharge the lien was dismissed, but the security was reduced from an initial $8,058,101.79 to $6,551,681.65.

This proceeding involved competing applications for the appointment of a receiver and manager under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, and an application for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants, secured creditors, sought receivership over three residential condominium projects (The Clover, Halo, and 33 Yorkville) due to significant financial irregularities, lack of transparency, and loss of confidence in the debtors' management.

The debtors opposed receivership and sought CCAA protection, proposing a share sale to Concord Group Developments and a plan to disclaim existing purchase agreements.

The court dismissed the CCAA application and granted the receivership application, finding that receivership was the preferable route.

The court emphasized the secured creditors' blocking position, the absence of a concrete CCAA plan, and the debtors' deliberate financial misconduct, which outweighed any potential benefits of a CCAA proceeding.

The Bondfield Group, a major construction company, sought CCAA protection due to insolvency, over $1 billion in active contracts, and over 200 lawsuits.

The application was unopposed and resulted from extensive stakeholder negotiations.

The court granted an initial order for CCAA protection, including a stay of proceedings, approval of a tailored $8 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility funded by Zurich Insurance, an Administration Charge for professional fees, and a Directors' Charge for $3 million (excluding John Aquino).

The court emphasized the public interest in completing critical infrastructure projects and the preference for CCAA over receivership to preserve enterprise value.