Amarnath V. Misir

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied leave to appeal from an order appointing a receiver over the property of 11977636 Canada Inc. at the request of the Bank of Montreal.

The debtor argued that the application judge made a factual error regarding the closing date of a property sale, which allegedly affected the decision to refuse an adjournment and appoint a receiver.

The Court found that the error was not determinative, as the appointment was justified by the debtor’s lack of accountability and transparency.

None of the three "Pine Tree" considerations for granting leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act were met.

The appellants requested an adjournment of their appeal in a mortgage enforcement action, citing their representative's compromised vision due to a medical issue.

The court reviewed the history of the proceeding, noting a pattern of delay and previous adjournments.

Finding the medical evidence insufficient and the request to be a further attempt to delay enforcement, the court denied the adjournment and ordered the appeal to proceed on the scheduled date, with provisions for written submissions if the appellants failed to appear.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final child support order dated April 18, 2011, seeking a reduction in monthly child support and his percentage contribution to section 7 costs based on health grounds (heart attack).

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal due to non-compliance with prior orders, claimed university section 7 costs for the son, and sought payment of all arrears.

The court found the respondent established a material change in circumstances due to health reasons and reduced his monthly child support obligation.

The court also determined the respondent's contribution to the son's postsecondary education costs at Lakehead University, accounting for grants, scholarships, and the son's own contributions.

The court determined costs following a trial where the plaintiff, Indra Seeta Angel, was largely successful in her claim for $177,444.80 against Monica Beepat.

The court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer was denied due to the absence of the offer's terms.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, reducing the plaintiff's claimed disbursements by $750 for staff overtime and fee costs by $7,700 for time spent arranging a trial date that had previously resulted in a costs order against the plaintiffs.

Ultimately, Monica Beepat was ordered to pay Indra Seeta Angel $92,968.95, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following earlier family law reasons, the court addressed outstanding issues relating to child support and costs.

The moving party sought child support for an adult child, arguing the child remained a “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act.

The court found the evidence did not establish that the adult child met the statutory definition and also found the responding party lacked the means to pay support.

On costs, success was divided: the responding party succeeded on spousal support but failed on the limitation issue relating to an equalization claim, while the moving party’s claim for child support failed.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife claimed an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court found that the wife's equalization claim was brought well beyond the six-year limitation period and declined to extend the time limit, finding she had not acted in good faith given her prior consultations with counsel.

However, the court awarded the wife a lump sum spousal support payment of $25,000 to reimburse her for home repairs, plus periodic spousal support of $850 per month for three years based on her need and the husband's ability to pay.