Arash Jazayeri

A creditor moved under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay and continue a pre-bankruptcy civil action alleging fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, and breach of trust arising from a residential property renovation and resale venture.

The court held that a contingent creditor has standing to seek leave, that the pleaded facts met the low threshold for showing sound reasons to lift the stay, and that the action raised credibility-driven and complex issues unsuitable for summary determination within the bankruptcy process.

The court found material prejudice because the creditor would otherwise be deprived of discovery, viva voce evidence, and a forum to determine whether the alleged debt falls within s. 178(1)(d) and (e).

The stay was lifted to permit the action to continue against the bankrupt.

The court also held that the bankrupt's motion materials were improper and misleading, and determined that costs should be awarded on a substantial indemnity basis, with quantum to be fixed later.

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.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

This was a costs endorsement following the granting of a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation against real property and the abandonment of a cross-motion for security for costs.

The successful moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs and relied on pre-hearing and post-decision settlement offers, while the responding parties argued for a lower amount or costs in the cause.

The court held that the settlement offers did not trigger the formal consequences under r. 49.10, but remained relevant to the discretionary assessment under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01.

Applying those factors and r. 37.09(3) concerning abandoned motions, the court fixed costs slightly above partial indemnity and ordered payment forthwith within 30 days.

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.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action, the plaintiff sought costs of $60,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on the mortgage's standard charge terms and the defendants' unsuccessful allegations of fraud.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed legal fees were inflated due to excessive time docketed for administrative tasks and duplication of work.

The court also disallowed several disbursements for lack of supporting receipts.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed the costs award at $40,956.90.

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.