Aram Simovonian

On a motion panel review, the moving party sought to overturn a single-judge order dismissing his stay and ancillary requests.

The court held the moving party failed to show any error in the finding that the appeal lacked merit and therefore failed to establish entitlement to a stay.

The court also rejected additional relief requested before the panel for lack of legal entitlement and admissible supporting evidence.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $1,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant residing in California, sought an extension of time to perfect two appeals arising from a defamation default judgment and an order striking his own action as frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal applied the test for extending time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeals.

Finding that the moving party had been properly served in the underlying proceedings and had failed to identify any reversible errors, the court concluded the appeals lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied with costs.

The appellant brought a motion seeking three forms of relief: production orders from non-parties (Google LLC and Scalzi Caplan LLP), a stay of enforcement of a defamation judgment, and disqualification of counsel.

The motion judge dismissed all three requests.

The appellant failed to establish any legal basis for the production orders under civil procedure rules, failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried or irreparable harm for the stay, and failed to show any proper grounds for disqualifying counsel.

The court found the appellant's allegations of fraud and improper service to be unsupported by credible evidence.

The appellant, 2557904 Ontario Inc. (the stalking horse bidder), appealed a motion judge's order that dismissed the receiver's motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) and instead approved the debtor's (1000093910 Ontario Inc.) motion to redeem a first mortgage.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by not ensuring 255 received compensation for costs thrown away and by granting provisional enforcement of the order after an appeal notice was filed.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to require the debtor to pay $300,000 in compensation to 255 and setting aside the provisional execution.

The court also ordered that if the refinancing transaction does not close, the AVO for 255 will be granted.

The Court of Appeal heard motions in an appeal concerning the receivership of a debtor's property.

The appellant, a successful bidder, appealed two lower court orders that terminated its Stalking Horse Agreement and approved the debtor's refinancing transaction.

The motion judge referred several issues to a panel, including the appellant's standing and right to appeal, and whether the lower court erred in terminating the agreement and granting provisional enforcement.

The Court of Appeal continued the stay of provisional execution of the lower court orders, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of court-approved sale processes, especially given the absence of reasons from the motion judge for his initial decision.

The respondent (1000093910 Ontario Inc.) brought an urgent motion for the court to sign a draft order including a provisional execution, which was opposed by the prospective purchaser (2557904 Ontario Inc.).

The purchaser had filed an appeal and sought a stay of a prior endorsement.

The court considered the urgency due to significant daily costs and an expiring financing offer.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction under section 195 of the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act to grant provisional execution, rejecting the purchaser's arguments that such relief was not properly requested or that jurisdiction lay solely with the Court of Appeal.

Balancing the irreparable harm, the court found that the prejudice to the applicant (Peakhill Capital Inc.), respondent, second mortgagee, and guarantors if provisional execution was not granted outweighed the harm to the purchaser.

The motion for provisional execution was granted.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to move promptly, did not adequately explain the circumstances leading to the default, and lacked an arguable defence on the merits.

The court also noted that the mortgage had matured, rendering the proposed defence largely moot.

The appellant, Bernard Drag, appealed a lower court order for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a residential property.

Drag argued the APS became null and void because the home inspection condition was not waived by the contractual deadline.

The trial judge found that Drag's agent breached the contractual duty of honest performance by misrepresenting an accepted amending agreement and Drag's unavailability, which delayed and compromised the respondent's ability to deliver the waiver on time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent relied on these misrepresentations to his detriment, preventing the appellant from insisting on strict adherence to the timing condition.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order for specific performance was affirmed.

1000093910 Ontario Inc., a company in receivership, appealed the motion judge’s decision to decline hearing its cross-motion and to grant the receiver’s proposal for a public auction of its primary asset.

The cross-motion sought to vary the receivership order and enforce an earlier agreement of purchase and sale (APS).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's discretionary decision not to hear the cross-motion was not erroneous, given the appellant's late service of materials and the low chance of success for the earlier APS.

The court also found no error in principle in the motion judge's approval of the receiver's proposed sales process, which included a "stalking horse" agreement, as it was fair, transparent, and aimed at optimizing the asset's price.

The defendant, Michael Garron Hospital (MGH), sought substantial indemnity costs for a dismissed motion brought by the plaintiffs concerning lease rights.

MGH argued for elevated costs due to alleged bad faith and an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court found no reprehensible conduct justifying substantial indemnity costs and ruled that the offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences for an elevated scale.

The court awarded MGH costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $40,000 all-inclusive, considering the motion's importance, moderate complexity, and the principle of fairness and reasonableness.

The appellants, Metro 1 Development Corporation Ltd. and its sub-tenant Athens, appealed a lower court decision that found Metro 1 in breach of a commercial lease for failing to operate a Tim Hortons restaurant and denied relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the lease, finding no implied term that would permit an alternative food service if a Tim Hortons franchise could not be maintained.

The court also found no error in the refusal to grant relief from forfeiture, rejecting arguments of bad faith by the respondent hospital and clarifying the scope of the duty of good faith in contract law.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

This motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerned whether an order made in a receivership proceeding, which approved bidding procedures and a stalking horse agreement for the sale of a property, and the motion judge's refusal to hear a cross-motion to approve an earlier agreement of purchase and sale, constituted an appealable order as of right under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) or required leave under s. 193(e).

The Court applied the "operative effect" test, finding that the refusal to hear the cross-motion, despite being procedural, effectively jeopardized the property's value by depriving the Debtor of the ability to enforce a higher-value original agreement, thereby triggering the automatic right of appeal.

The motion for leave was dismissed as unnecessary, and the appeal was expedited.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for production orders and examination of the defendants in aid of an existing Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The only contentious issue was a request to order a non-party exchange to provide information regarding the defendants' assets.

The court granted the order, finding it necessary in aid of execution of the Mareva injunction, and rejected the defendants' argument that the request was an improper attempt to gather evidence for a contempt motion.

The Plaintiffs (Metro 1 Development Corporation Ltd. and its subtenants) brought a motion seeking a declaration that their lease agreement with Michael Garron Hospital had not been breached, or alternatively, for relief from forfeiture.

The dispute arose from a 'use' clause in the lease requiring the operation of a Tim Hortons restaurant, which became impossible after the termination of a separate Product Licence Agreement with TDL Group Corp. The Plaintiffs argued for an implied term in the lease to allow for a different food service and contended that the Hospital acted in bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no basis to imply a term that contradicted the express language of the lease and denying relief from forfeiture based on the Plaintiffs' conduct, the gravity of the breach, and the balance of interests.

The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against multiple defendants in a dispute involving cryptocurrency investments.

The motion was dismissed for the third time, as the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case or a real risk of asset dissipation by the defendants.

The court found the dispute to be primarily contractual, not indicative of fraudulent asset flight.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantive indemnity scale.

Lynne Foulidis appealed a Superior Court order granting a charging order against her Toronto residence to Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation for $664,323.38 in legal fees.

The charging order was granted to secure outstanding legal fees from family litigation.

Lynne argued the property was no longer in existence for the purpose of the charging order due to a prior transfer to George Foulidis, that the lawyer's contribution was not substantial, and that there was no risk of non-payment.

Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Lynne's appeal, upholding the charging order, finding that the property was in existence (subject to a triable issue of fraudulent conveyance), the lawyer's contribution was instrumental, and there was a clear refusal to pay fees.

The cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed, but costs of the appeal were awarded to Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation.