Arash Jazayeri

The moving parties sought a finding that the respondents breached an interim order restraining the founder and controlling shareholder from participating in management of a publicly traded company and restraining the shareholder from using voting shares to remove directors.

The court found the founder in contempt for communications to the SEC that constituted indirect participation in management, but declined to find contempt against the shareholder and company, finding the relevant order provision was declaratory rather than directive.

The court scheduled a penalty phase to consider purging of contempt.

This decision concerns a dispute over the rightful board of directors of Visionary Holdings Inc. and allegations of fraud and oppression.

The court determined that the Board of Directors as it existed on March 25, 2025, is the lawful board until further order.

The court also found a prima facie case of oppressive conduct and ordered the appointment of an inspector under the Business Corporations Act.

The court granted injunctive relief restraining Fan Zhou from participating in management and 3888 Investment Group Limited from altering the board pending investigation.

This decision concerns an oppression remedy application and counterapplication under section 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The dispute is between two siblings, Asanka and Shamali, regarding the beneficial ownership and management of a small convenience store business operated through 1000635690 Ontario Inc. The court finds that both parties have reasonable expectations and have, in different ways, been oppressed by the other’s conduct.

The court orders a collaborative business arrangement until the expiry of the lease, after which Asanka will acquire full ownership, and profits will be distributed according to a specified formula.

The Estate Trustee, Cynthia Stren, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Morrissa Amsel's claim against the Estate, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and/or the Trustee Act.

Morrissa claimed a trust and contractual interest in a property, asserting her claim was an equitable claim in land subject to the Real Property Limitations Act's 10-year period, and that she lacked capacity to bring the claim earlier.

The court found Morrissa's claim was contractual, not equitable, and was statute-barred under both the Limitations Act and the Trustee Act.

Her evidence of incapacity was deemed insufficient.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Morrissa's claim.

The applicant, Dawn McKenzie, acting as Power of Attorney for Property for Raymond Morgan, sought court approval to sell the Springdale property.

This property was subject to a life leasehold interest in favour of the respondent, Wendy Morgan, as per Mr. Morgan's will.

The applicant argued the sale was necessary to cover Mr. Morgan's caregiving fees and debts.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's financial assessments were unreliable and that other options for liquidity had not been adequately explored.

The court also expressed concerns about the applicant's management of Mr. Morgan's care and his isolation from other family members.

Andrew Henry Ting sought to set aside a single judge's decision denying leave to appeal a civil contempt finding related to his father's foreign bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, holding that a panel generally lacks jurisdiction to review a single appellate judge's decision on leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and even if jurisdiction existed, the motion lacked merit as the original decision was sound.

An application for leave to appeal a contempt finding was dismissed.

The contempt finding arose from the applicant's failure to attend an examination in aid of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance to bankruptcy/insolvency practice or the administration of justice, lacked prima facie merit, and would unduly hinder the progress of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The issues raised included a refused recusal motion and the requirement of personal service for contempt proceedings.

This is a motion to quash an appeal brought by Andrew Henry Ting against two orders made in the bankruptcy proceedings of his father, James Henry Ting.

The orders included an enforcement of a Hong Kong letter of request for production and examination, and a subsequent contempt finding and penalty for non-compliance.

The appellant argued he had a right of appeal under s. 193(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) on the basis that the point at issue involved "future rights," specifically procedural fairness regarding a recusal request.

The Court of Appeal held that the orders were subject to BIA appeal routes and that issues of procedural fairness engage present, not future, rights.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed.

The applicant sought a stay of production and examination orders pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applicant's father was adjudged bankrupt in Hong Kong, and foreign representatives obtained recognition of the Hong Kong bankruptcy proceeding in Ontario.

The applicant challenged the procedural regularity of the initial recognition order, arguing the bankrupt was not given proper notice.

The Court of Appeal granted a conditional stay, requiring the applicant to produce specified documents and file an affidavit of full production by October 9, 2019, with sealed documents to remain sealed pending the Supreme Court's disposition of the leave application.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for the amount owing on a second mortgage.

The defendants argued the initial funds were gifts, not loans, and that the mortgage was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation, duress, and was unconscionable, asserting they did not understand what they were signing despite receiving independent legal advice.

The court found the funds were loans, interest was implied by conduct, there was no misrepresentation, the defendants understood the documents and received adequate independent legal advice, and the mortgage was not unconscionable.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

During the hearing, the defendants raised unpleaded legal issues in their factum, which was served late.

The plaintiff sought to file a supplementary book of authorities to address these new issues, providing it to the defendants at the commencement of the motion.

The court accepted the plaintiff's supplementary book of authorities and heard submissions from both parties.

To ensure fairness, the defendants were granted leave to file written submissions on the cases in the supplementary book within ten days, with the plaintiff allowed a further ten days for reply submissions, both limited to five pages.