Anisha Samat

The applicants sought to set aside two consent judgments obtained by Owens Wright LLP against its insolvent clients, Greenvilla, arguing abuse of process and fraudulent preference under the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The court found that Owens Wright obtained the judgments through abusive maneuvers, including failure to provide proper notice and ignoring a Notice of Intent to Defend from Greenvilla's receiver.

The court also found the transactions to be fraudulent preferences, citing numerous indicia of fraud and the non-arm's length relationship between Owens Wright and Greenvilla.

The judgments were declared null and void, and Owens Wright was ordered to repay the funds.

This case involved cross-motions for summary judgment concerning a terminated mortgage commitment letter.

The plaintiffs (developer) sought the return of a lender fee, alleging the defendants (lender) made unreasonable demands and acted in bad faith, leading to the termination.

The defendants sought the outstanding balance of the fee.

The court determined that a $100,000 deposit paid by the developer was a valid liquidated damages clause and could be retained by the lender.

However, the remaining $326,500 of the lender fee was deemed an unenforceable penalty, as the lender provided insufficient evidence of damages incurred for work not performed.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment for the $326,500 and dismissed the defendants' motion.

The Court-appointed Receiver sought approval of a lien claim settlement, administrative expenses, its fees, and directions regarding the mortgagee's claim for three months' bonus interest upon default.

The Court approved the settlement, expenses, and fees.

However, the Court directed the Receiver to reject the mortgagee's claim for bonus interest, finding that the mortgage provision violated section 8 of the Interest Act by imposing a higher charge on arrears.

The Court also held that section 17 of the Mortgages Act does not apply to distributions by a court-appointed receiver.

The applicants purchased a property and subsequently received a municipal order to remediate unpermitted structures.

They made a claim under their title insurance policy.

The insurer invoked the policy's appraisal process, instructing the appraiser to calculate the 'Actual Loss' by valuing the land as if the unpermitted structures did not exist.

The applicants challenged this interpretation and the policy's appraisal process.

The court held that 'Actual Loss' must be calculated based on the value of the property subject to the government order, not as vacant land.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the appraisal process mandated by section 128 of the Insurance Act overrides the inconsistent process set out in the insurance policy.

The applicants, limited partners in a real estate development project, brought an application to compel the general partner to proceed to arbitration regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The respondents resisted, arguing that preliminary issues such as corporate authority and the enforceability of a release must be decided by the court first.

The court granted the application, ordering the parties to arbitration and holding that the broad arbitration clause and the competence-competence principle allowed the arbitrator to determine the preliminary issues.

The court also ordered that the sale proceeds remain in trust pending the arbitration.