Benjamin Frydenberg

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding the individual appellant personally bound by a contract and denying credit for the residual value of used equipment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly relied on handwritten entries and signatures rather than pre-printed clauses, making the doctrine of contra proferentem inapplicable.

The Court also found no error in denying credit for the equipment, as unchallenged evidence indicated it had no market value.

The appellant's wife forged a power of attorney in his name to obtain mortgages from the respondents to pay off gambling debts.

The appellant, who was unaware of the fraud, argued the mortgages were void.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent mortgagees, finding the mortgages valid under the Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under sections 78(4) and 155 of the Land Titles Act, the mortgages, having been given for valuable consideration and without notice of the fraud, were effective once registered.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice in a bankruptcy matter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the result followed the disposition of a companion action appeal (C43482) which had also been dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly stated the applicable principles and reasonably concluded that the delay was inordinate, raising a presumption of prejudice.

As the appellants provided no evidence to explain the delay, the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal in a bankruptcy proceeding.

After receiving submissions from the parties, the court fixed costs in favour of the respondent trustee in bankruptcy at $10,000 and in favour of the respondent creditor at $2,000, both inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed an order settling a prior order that approved the sale of a bankrupt company's assets, including a trademark licence agreement and shares, to Stanfield's Limited, as well as a vesting order.

The appellants argued the sale should not have been approved prior to determining entitlement to the interest in the licence agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the sale prior to determining entitlement, especially given evidence that the value of the licence agreement was deteriorating.

The dismissal of the appellants' cross-motion for an adjournment was also upheld.

The appellant bank appealed a forfeiture order over a U.S. dollar account used in connection with a fraudulent telemarketing gemstone scheme.

The court held that the fraudster's interest in victim funds was voidable, not void ab initio, so the bank's security interest could attach and constituted a valid interest under s. 462.41 of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing judge erred by treating the proceeds of crime as incapable of being given as security and by failing to consider the discretionary relief available to an innocent secured creditor.

On appeal, the court exercised that discretion only in part, ordering forfeiture of the identifiable proceeds of six victims and return of the remaining balance to the bank.

The appellant challenged a Commercial List order refusing an adjournment and dismissing its appeal from the disallowance of a proof of claim in a winding-up proceeding for want of prosecution.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge was aware of the full context, including the appellant's prolonged inaction, failure to file responding materials, and failure to explain either the asserted conflict with counsel or the delay.

The court rejected the appellant's procedural fairness argument and found no error in the exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.