Benoit Duchesne

The noteholders appealed the Proposal Trustee's disallowance of their unsecured claims in the BIA proposals of several subsidiary corporations.

The Trustee had determined that the subsidiaries' guarantees were limited to an initial US$3 million advance and did not cover a subsequent US$12 million advance, and that the initial advance had been fully satisfied by a property transfer.

The Superior Court upheld the Trustee's interpretation of the guarantees but found an error in the debt allocation, ruling that US$828,000 of the guaranteed debt remained outstanding and should be recognized as an unsecured claim.

The court-appointed liquidator of a partnership sought approval of its fees and disbursements, including legal fees, and directions for the distribution of the net proceeds.

The liquidation involved significant complications, including the need to recognize a Quebec judgment in Ontario and deal with multiple creditors.

The court approved the liquidator's fees, finding them fair and reasonable despite exceeding a 2:1 ratio of net receivables, due to the disproportionate difficulties encountered.

The court also interpreted the underlying Quebec judgment, concluding that a specific sum awarded to one partner was a damages award, not a priority claim on the liquidated assets, and directed the remaining proceeds to be distributed pro rata among the other partner's creditors.

Following a successful summary judgment motion setting aside a fraudulent conveyance, the plaintiffs sought costs of up to $145,509.94.

The court found the claimed amounts excessive, particularly a $69,060.20 disbursement for an expert accounting report that was not relied upon or referred to during the motion.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $31,000 all-inclusive, as suggested by the defendant.

The respondent university brought a motion to transfer an application from Ottawa to Guelph.

The underlying dispute concerned the university’s refusal to continue collecting and remitting membership fees to national and provincial student organizations after a student referendum discontinued membership.

Applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the location of events, damages, community interest, and convenience of the parties and witnesses.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish that the proposed venue was significantly better than the applicants’ chosen forum.

The motion to transfer venue was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The Court considered whether defendants could seek dismissal under Ontario Rule 21.01(3)(a) based on arbitration and forum selection clauses after delivering a statement of defence.

It held that a defence pleading the foreign forum clause does not itself bar a subsequent Rule 21 motion, provided the motion is brought promptly.

Applying the strong-cause framework for displacing contractual forum clauses, the Court found no basis to refuse enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.