Bernadette Dietrich

The applicant sought to remove his brother as co-Estate Trustee of their late father's estate and sought directions on the apportionment of the estate.

The respondent brought a cross-application seeking compensation for personal care services, interest, and other payments.

The court found the respondent to be in an irreconcilable conflict of interest due to his unauthorized use of estate funds, failure to comply with a prior settlement agreement, and procedurally flawed claims against the estate.

The court removed the respondent as an Estate Trustee, dismissed his cross-application, and directed that specific amounts be deducted from his share of the estate to reimburse the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as an abuse of process, or alternatively to strike certain claims and consolidate the action with a related proceeding in Newmarket.

The court declined to dismiss the action as an abuse of process, finding it involved new parties and different claims.

However, the court struck the impugned claims for failing to plead material facts, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend.

The court also ordered the two actions to be consolidated or tried together to avoid inconsistent findings regarding a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The 94-year-old applicant, former spouse of the deceased, sought dependant support from his estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

Despite a 1994 divorce judgment and minutes of settlement containing a full release, the deceased had been paying the applicant monthly spousal support until his death.

The court found it had jurisdiction to order support under s. 63(4) of the SLRA.

Concluding that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant and owed her a moral duty, the court ordered the estate to pay $3,400 per month in support for the remainder of her life.

The applicant and her husband were equal shareholders in a concrete forming business.

Following a marital breakdown, the husband incorporated a new company, transferred the original company's assets, employees, and business opportunities to it, and excluded the applicant from any role or ownership.

The applicant brought an application for an oppression remedy.

The court found the husband's conduct was oppressive, unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests, and breached his fiduciary duties.

The court ordered a buy-out of the applicant's 50 percent interest in the original company at fair market value, to be determined by a valuator, and awarded her compensation for 14 months of lost income.

A trial was ordered within a receivership application to determine the ownership of three corporations that held interests in real property.

The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the corporations, while the principal of the Laila Group of Companies claimed the corporations were subsidiaries of her company, World Corp. The court found both parties lacked credibility and had fabricated documents.

Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff was the legal owner of one corporation but held it on a resulting trust for World Corp., and that World Corp. was the legal and beneficial owner of the other two corporations.

The plaintiffs brought a bankruptcy application against the defendant for an alleged indebtedness of approximately US$32.4 million for unpaid wholesale apparel.

The defendant moved to stay or dismiss the application, arguing there was a bona fide dispute over the debt due to the plaintiffs' alleged breaches of a Master Sourcing Agreement, which contained an exclusive forum clause designating New York courts.

The court found a bona fide dispute existed and that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the contractual claims due to the forum selection clause.

The bankruptcy application was stayed on terms, including a requirement for the defendant to pay funds into court, pending the resolution of the New York proceeding.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for possession of a residence after the mortgagor defaulted.

The mortgagor brought a cross-motion in a related oppression action seeking an injunction to restrain the mortgage enforcement and an order for interim funding to pursue the oppression claim.

The court found that the mortgagor did not establish a strong prima facie case of oppression or show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

The court also found that the mortgagor did not meet the test for interim funding.

The motion for possession was granted, and the cross-motion for an injunction and interim funding was dismissed.

The Monitor of Bondfield Construction Company Limited and the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Forma-Con Construction brought applications under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recover tens of millions of dollars transferred out of the debtor companies through a false invoicing scheme and an alleged fund cycling scheme.

The court found that the payments made under the false invoicing scheme were transfers at undervalue made with the intent to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors, and held the participating respondents jointly and severally liable.

The court declined to apply the strict corporate attribution doctrine from Canadian Dredge, instead imputing the directing mind's fraudulent intent to the corporate debtors to fulfill the remedial purpose of s. 96.

The Monitor's claim regarding the fund cycling scheme was dismissed for lack of evidence that the transfers lacked consideration.

The applicant, Cronos Group Inc., sought a declaration that it had a contractual right to exercise an Optional Extension Period (OEP) under its Excess Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Policy issued by the respondent, Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A., and that it successfully exercised this right.

The respondent denied coverage, arguing the OEP was not incorporated into the Excess Policy and the premium paid was insufficient.

The court found that the OEP was incorporated into the Excess Policy by reference to the Primary Policy, as it was not explicitly excluded.

The court also determined that the applicant's calculation and payment of the OEP premium, based on twice the original policy premium, was commercially reasonable and consistent with prior representations.

The application was granted, declaring the OEP right enforceable and the premium calculation valid.

The moving parties sought an order sentencing the responding party to five days imprisonment for his civil contempt, following his failure to attend an examination as ordered.

The responding party argued that his pending appeal of the contempt order automatically stayed the sanctioning hearing under s. 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court rejected this argument, finding that a sanctioning hearing is not a proceeding under the order appealed from.

Applying the Boily factors, the court ordered that the responding party be given one final opportunity to purge his contempt by attending an examination within seven days of the final adjudication of his appeal, failing which he will be sentenced to seven days of incarceration.

Following a successful summary judgment motion setting aside transfers at undervalue, the Trustee in Bankruptcy sought substantial indemnity costs, including pre-litigation costs, and a vesting order.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, declining to award pre-litigation costs or substantial indemnity costs as the defendants' conduct was not reprehensible.

The court also approved the inclusion of a vesting order in the judgment, finding it to be a natural corollary to the order setting aside the transfers under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants Isaify Inc. and Ali Imran Zaffar, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for a default judgment previously obtained against other defendants in the amount of $361,062.10.

The plaintiff alleged that Zaffar and Isaify participated in a fraudulent scheme by misrepresenting the financial health of a business partner and allowing their bank accounts to be used to divert funds from creditors.

The court found that the defendants' conduct amounted to fraud, as they knowingly misled the plaintiff and induced it into entering transactions that resulted in financial loss.

The court held that the defendants were bound by the default judgment and ordered them jointly and severally liable for the damages.

The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte Mareva injunction and an interim preservation order against the defendants, who allegedly defrauded a government COVID-19 relief program of at least $11 million.

The moving party brought a motion to vary the Mareva injunction to access frozen funds for legal and living expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to make full disclosure of his worldwide assets and did not discharge the onus of proving that he and his family had no other assets available to pay their expenses.

The applicant brought a motion seeking deductions from the respondent's share of their late father's estate, alleging the respondent financially enriched herself while acting as attorney for property.

The applicant also sought an order for the distribution of disputed chattels.

The court reviewed the respondent's informal accounting and ordered a deduction of $10,764.52 from her share of the estate for unaccounted withdrawals and inappropriate expenses.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for the disputed chattels, instead directing the estate trustee to sell them and divide the proceeds equally between the siblings.

The applicant, a secured creditor and shareholder of the respondent, applied to appoint a receiver over the respondent's assets, which primarily consisted of patents for waste-to-energy technology.

A founder and shareholder of the respondent moved to stay the application, arguing the dispute over the validity of the applicant's security should be arbitrated under a unanimous shareholder agreement.

The court dismissed the motion to stay and granted the receivership application, finding that the respondent lacked funds to maintain its patents or participate in arbitration, and a court-appointed receiver was necessary to preserve the intellectual property and determine creditor priorities.

The applicant and respondent, siblings and joint attorneys for property for their incapable mother, disputed the administration of their late father's estate.

The applicant sought to appoint CIBC Trust as Estate Trustee to administer the estate under a 1974 Will, which left the residue to their mother.

The respondent opposed, arguing their father had made a later will disinheriting their mother, and sought an order compelling an election under the Family Law Act to protect her interests.

The court found no evidence of a later will despite extensive searches, dismissed the respondent's motion, appointed CIBC Trust as Estate Trustee, and declared the 1974 Will valid.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis, capped at $125,000, payable by the respondent, the estate, and the mother.

The applicants, a minority shareholder and its principal, sought an oppression remedy against the majority shareholder and his holding company in a family-owned transportation business.

The court found that the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicants' interests by excluding the individual applicant from management, terminating his employment, paying excessive compensation to himself and his spouse, and improperly deducting expenses from the minority shareholder's dividends.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the minority shares for $1,592,000 based on a February 2019 valuation and to pay $80,902.67 in compensation for unpaid dividends.

The applicant brought an application to enforce his rights under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding a cannabis licence in Zimbabwe.

The respondents moved to stay the proceedings, arguing the MOA mandated arbitration at the London Court of International Arbitration.

The applicant argued the MOA also contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause for Canadian courts, creating a conflict that allowed him to choose the forum.

The court found that it was arguable the dispute fell within the mandatory arbitration provision and, applying the competence-competence principle, stayed the application to allow the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The applicant, an unsecured creditor, sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to sue the licensed insolvency trustee.

She alleged the trustee improperly accepted an assignment in bankruptcy made by the bankrupt's wife using a power of attorney, arguing the power of attorney was defective and the wife was an undischarged bankrupt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the power of attorney was valid, the wife was not mentally incapable under the Substitute Decisions Act, and the proposed claim disclosed no cause of action against the trustee.

The applicants sought to enforce an arbitral award requiring the individual respondent to repay $400,000 in loans he guaranteed.

The arbitrator had terminated the arbitration after the first phase due to the respondent's conduct but confirmed the award's effect.

The respondent opposed enforcement, alleging bias and fraud, and sought an adjournment.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, noting the respondent had ample notice and opportunity to retain counsel.

The court enforced the award, finding the respondent had not taken any steps to set it aside under the Arbitration Act, and awarded costs to the applicants.