Angela Grant Lee

The applicant, PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (Bridging Receiver), sought an order to appoint Richter Inc. as receiver and manager over Northern Citadel Capital Inc., One8One Davenport Inc., and 181 Davenport Retail Inc. due to an outstanding and defaulted loan.

Northern Citadel and One8One did not oppose the appointment but challenged its scope. 181 Retail opposed the appointment entirely, arguing its obligations were limited to a repaid loan and its security should have been discharged.

The court found the loan was in default and the contractual documents clearly established 181 Retail's liability as a guarantor for the full loan amount, rejecting arguments based on subjective intent or unfulfilled discharge instructions.

The court granted the appointment of Richter as receiver over all respondents but denied the Bridging Receiver's requests for sweeping investigative powers and immediate authorization to assign respondents into bankruptcy, deeming them unnecessary at that stage.

This endorsement addresses a motion brought by a non-party, Khashayar Khavari, seeking leave to intervene as an added party in a receivership application.

The applicant, PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (as court-appointed receiver of Bridging Finance Inc.), sought to appoint a receiver over the respondents, Northern Citadel Capital Inc., One8One Davenport Inc., and 181 Davenport Retail Inc. Khashayar Khavari claimed an equity interest in the respondent companies, which was subject to ongoing litigation, and argued he had an interest in the subject matter or could be adversely affected by the receivership order.

The motion was opposed by both the Bridging Receiver and the Respondents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Khashayar Khavari was a stranger to the debtor-creditor relationship, had no direct economic interest in the receivership application, and would not be unduly prejudiced as he could participate as an interested person on the service list.

This endorsement determined the lump sum child and spousal support payable by the Respondent to the Applicant, and fixed costs.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay lump sum child support of $197,139 and spousal support of $44,411, totaling $241,550, based on the low end of the SSAG range given the duration of support.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs, but the court awarded enhanced costs of $50,000, all inclusive, due to the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide disclosure and non-participation, which significantly increased the Applicant's legal costs.

The court found the Respondent's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought equalization of net family properties, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent, who suffered from untreated alcoholism, had been terminated from his employment due to unexplained absences and refused to participate in the proceedings.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $220,150.70 but declined to order an unequal division of property, finding the high threshold of unconscionability was not met.

The court imputed an income of $127,307 to the respondent, finding his termination resulted from intentional unemployment rather than a medical inability to work.

Given the respondent's failure to pay support since separation and threats to avoid his obligations, the court ordered that both child and spousal support be paid as a lump sum, secured by a charge on the matrimonial home.