Barbara Green

Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc., as Construction Receiver for Urbancorp entities, sought approval of its fees and its counsels' fees totaling over $3.4 million.

Terra Firma Capital Corporation, a junior secured creditor, objected to the fees of the Construction Receiver and its independent counsel (Blakes), seeking a 30% reduction, citing unreasonable hourly rates, disproportionate time spent, and duplication of services.

The court reviewed the fees based on the Belyea factors, emphasizing value provided over time spent.

The court found the receivership complex and the rates reasonable, but identified some duplication due to the excessive number of timekeepers from Blakes.

The court approved most fees but applied a minor reduction of $35,000 to Blakes' fees.

A receiver sought to defeat an appeal from a court order approving the sale of real property (a residential condominium project for seniors) to Pinnacle International One Lands Inc. The appellant, Fortress, had competed for the property through a stalking horse bidding process and subsequently submitted competing offers.

The receiver accepted Pinnacle's offer.

Fortress appealed, relying solely on section 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which provides an automatic right of appeal if property involved exceeds $10,000 in value.

The Court of Appeal held that the approval order did not "result in a loss" within the meaning of section 193(c) because the receiver could not have obtained a better deal than Pinnacle's offer.

The court found that Pinnacle's offer had superior practical value due to a higher deposit, all-cash financing, support from the first mortgagee, and the integrity of the sale process.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown called three witnesses: a security guard, the arresting officer, and a qualified breath technician.

The court dismissed the over 80 charge due to insufficient proof that the first breath sample was taken within two hours as required by section 258(1)(c)(ii).

However, the court convicted on the impaired driving charge based on the totality of evidence demonstrating impairment of the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner for unpaid invoices relating to balcony restoration work.

The defendant opposed the motion and brought a motion for summary judgment against the third-party engineer for contribution and indemnity, while the engineer sought summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that conflicting evidence regarding whether the additional work and waterproofing were authorized created a genuine issue requiring a trial that could not be resolved without viva voce evidence and credibility findings.

The applicant, Saeed Yahyavi, brought an emergency motion to restrain the sale of his home by the respondent, Nadi Inc., under power of sale.

The applicant alleged that Nadi Inc. failed to disclose and account for a $250,000 payment received from a settlement in a fraudulent conveyance action, which should have been credited against the judgment debt secured by the mortgage on his home.

The court found that Nadi Inc. knowingly misstated the amount due in the notice of sale by improperly characterizing the settlement funds as punitive damages and costs rather than a realization on the judgment.

The court declared the notice of sale void and enjoined Nadi Inc. from completing the sale.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,100,000 into court, and the issues regarding the proper amount due were referred to a Master for accounting.

The accused pleaded guilty to Over 80 (impaired driving), Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Fail to Stop, and Drive Suspended.

The accused, a transport truck driver, drove while impaired by alcohol on one occasion and subsequently drove while extremely fatigued, fell asleep at the wheel, and struck a victim's vehicle, causing life-altering injuries.

The accused fled the scene and provided a false account to her employer.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 23.5 months, probation, driving prohibitions, DNA order, and victim surcharge, emphasizing the enhanced duty of care owed by commercial truck drivers and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit autopsy, hospital, and clothing photographs of the deceased.

The defence objected, arguing the photographs were excessive, unnecessary, and unduly prejudicial.

The court applied the test of relevance and probative value versus prejudicial effect, finding the photographs highly probative for the jury to understand the nature of the injuries and the defendant's statements, and not unduly prejudicial.

The court ruled to admit all vetted photographs, emphasizing their necessity to assist the pathologist's testimony and provide context beyond diagrams.

The accused was charged with one count of over 80 (impaired driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood) arising from a motor vehicle accident on January 30, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of an overturned vehicle, police observations of alcohol odour, a failed approved screening device, and breath test readings of 190 and 180 milligrams.

The defence raised the issue of post-driving bolus drinking, arguing that the accused consumed alcohol after the accident while walking to seek assistance.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding post-driving consumption to be internally inconsistent and undermined by statements made to police.

However, the court ultimately found reasonable doubt based on the toxicologist's evidence that the accused's drinking pattern (one beer before driving, followed by post-driving consumption of mini bottles and a mickey of liquor) would be consistent with zero blood alcohol at the time of driving if the accident occurred at midnight.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with an adopted daughter under 16 years of age, committed between January 26, 2008 and September 20, 2013.

The abuse was prolonged, involving multiple forms of sexual intercourse, resulted in pregnancy which the accused arranged to be terminated, and was concealed through manipulation of the victim's vulnerabilities.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment, applying a starting point of ten years and adjusting downward for the guilty plea, counselling, remorse, first offender status, and pre-trial custody.

The moving parties sought dismissal of a will challenge brought by a beneficiary alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence in relation to two wills.

The court held that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the claimant knew or ought to have known of the material facts shortly after the testator’s death yet commenced proceedings more than two years later.

The claimant had received substantial benefits under the wills and actively participated in estate administration, including sale of assets and receipt of distributions.

The court further held that the doctrines of estoppel by convention and estoppel by representation independently barred the challenge because the parties had proceeded on the shared assumption that the wills were valid and the estate trustees relied on that assumption in administering the estate.

The will challenge was therefore dismissed.

The Crown applied to adduce evidence under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code at a preliminary inquiry for a second degree murder charge.

The Crown sought to introduce various evidence including photographs, statements from ambulance attendants, victim statements to her lawyer and mother, video and audio recordings, cell phone records and text messages, forensic reports, and pathology reports.

The defence opposed admission of the victim's statements to her lawyer and mother.

The court admitted most of the Crown's proposed evidence, finding it credible and trustworthy under the s. 540(7) threshold.

The court also admitted the victim's statements to her mother and lawyer, finding they met the threshold test and that the witnesses had sufficient reliability despite potential credibility issues.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act and criminal harassment.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the culprit.

The complainant, a 17-year-old retail worker, identified the defendant as the man who exposed himself to her in her store and subsequently appeared at the mall wearing glasses.

The complainant made a photo line-up identification with 85-90% certainty and testified she was 100% certain the defendant was the man captured on mall security camera footage.

The defendant denied the charges and testified he only wears glasses for reading purposes.

Three defence witnesses corroborated that the defendant does not wear glasses except when reading.

The court found that while the Crown's case would have resulted in conviction if unanswered, the defence evidence regarding the defendant's glasses-wearing habits raised sufficient reasonable doubt to warrant acquittal.

Following a Rule 57.07 motion concerning potential personal liability of counsel for costs, the law firm and a lawyer sought recovery of their legal costs incurred in defending the motion.

The responding party had sought to impose more than $100,000 in costs against counsel personally.

The court held that the requested full indemnity costs were excessive and that the responding party’s conduct was not reprehensible.

However, given the seriousness of the allegations and the work required to defend the motion, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs of the Rule 57.07 motion were fixed at $15,000 payable by the responding party, and no additional costs were awarded between the original litigants for the costs hearing.

The defendant sought approximately $100,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis against the plaintiff and its lawyers following the dismissal of the action against it and the discharge of a certificate of pending litigation registered against property.

The court considered the principles governing costs under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the high threshold for awarding elevated costs or personal costs against counsel.

The court held that although the defendant was successful, the plaintiff’s decision to include the defendant in the claim was reasonable given the timing of the mortgage transfers and allegations of misappropriation.

The plaintiff withdrew its claim promptly after receiving evidence establishing the legitimacy of the defendant’s mortgage interest.

Partial indemnity costs of $35,000 were awarded against the plaintiff, and the request for costs against the plaintiff’s lawyers was dismissed.

Following motions for security for costs brought by two defendants, the court addressed the costs of those motions.

The defendants had obtained security for costs orders but in amounts lower than requested.

The court considered the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 1.04, 56.01, and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the moving parties were largely successful, reductions were warranted due to incomplete success and procedural issues related to timing of a statement of defence.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff.

Defendants brought motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against a foreign corporate plaintiff resident in Russia with no assets in Ontario.

The court confirmed the two‑stage framework for security for costs motions and held the defendants met the initial burden because the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or other circumstances making a security order unjust, despite having substantial funds abroad.

The court exercised its discretion to order staged security for costs, including amounts related to pending motions to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court also granted a sealing order over a document containing non‑party investors’ financial information and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for the confidentiality motion.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class action arising from an alleged investment fraud involving monies deposited into bank accounts held at the defendant bank.

Earlier reasons had found the certification criteria satisfied except for the adequacy of the litigation plan under s. 5(1)(e)(ii) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

After filing a revised litigation plan addressing communication with class members, management of damages, and procedural issues including a jury notice, the court determined the deficiencies had been remedied.

The court approved revised common issues and concluded the statutory requirements for certification were met.

The proceeding was certified as a class action and a representative plaintiff was appointed.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding against a financial institution relating to losses arising from a fraudulent investment scheme involving a tooth whitening promotion.

Earlier reasons had found that the criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied except for the requirement that the representative plaintiff adequately represent the class.

The court had concerns regarding the plaintiff’s health following a stroke and his ability to perform the role.

After further medical evidence was filed, including expert neurological evidence confirming no cognitive impairment, the court accepted that the plaintiff could adequately represent the class and that the litigation plan addressed communication with class members and management of damages.

The court concluded that the statutory criteria were met and certified the proceeding as a class action.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Bank of Montreal (BMO) arising from a $77 million Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Salim Damji.

The plaintiff alleged that BMO knowingly assisted in Damji's breach of trust, knowingly received fraudulent funds, and was negligent in its receipt of these funds.

The court granted leave to bring the certification motion and found that the plaintiff met the first four criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the court found the representative plaintiff's health issues and deficiencies in the litigation plan rendered the final criterion unsatisfied.

The certification motion was adjourned for 30 days to allow the plaintiff to address these deficiencies.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Bank of Montreal arising from a $77 million investment fraud perpetrated by Salim Damji.

The plaintiff alleged that BMO knowingly assisted in Damji's breach of trust, knowingly received fraudulent funds, and was negligent in its receipt of these funds.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the criteria for certification under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, except for the requirement of a workable litigation plan.

The court adjourned the certification motion to allow the plaintiff to provide an acceptable litigation plan.