B. Jenkins

Ms. Chang moved to set aside a Mareva injunction previously granted against her, alleging that the plaintiff, Maxjoyce Express Inc., failed to provide full, fair, and frank disclosure of material facts during the ex parte application for the injunction.

The court found that Maxjoyce's representative, Mr. Deng, intentionally omitted and misrepresented several material facts, including his own unauthorized withdrawals of funds, Ms. Chang's directorship, and her explicit refusal to consent to fund transfers.

The court concluded that these were not mere 'sloppy' errors but material facts that should have been disclosed.

Consequently, the Mareva injunction was set aside.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an agreement of purchase and sale for the debtor’s real property following a court-approved sales and marketing process.

The debtor moved for a temporary stay of the receivership sale process to pursue refinancing that would redeem the first mortgage.

The court held that granting the stay would undermine the integrity of the court-sanctioned sales process, particularly where multiple bidders complied with the process and the debtor attempted to introduce a late proposal after the bid deadline.

The debtor’s refinancing proposal was neither firm nor sufficient to discharge the first mortgage and receivership costs.

Applying the principles from Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair, the court approved the receiver’s sale and dismissed the debtor’s stay motion.

Judgment creditors brought an application seeking approval of a proposed agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property or, alternatively, the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution to facilitate enforcement of a monetary judgment.

The court reviewed the governing principles for appointing an equitable receiver, including the requirement for special circumstances where traditional execution mechanisms would be ineffective or impractical.

The evidence demonstrated that the judgment debtors failed to comply with settlement timelines requiring sale or refinancing of the property and did not adequately cooperate with the sales process.

Given delays, conflicting interests among stakeholders, and concerns that the existing listing process did not satisfy the Soundair principles for court-supervised asset sales, the court concluded that a receiver-controlled sales process was necessary.

A receiver was therefore appointed with authority to market and sell the property, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicants.

The plaintiffs' home and personal property were damaged by a fire.

They sued their insurer and the restoration contractor for incomplete and deficient repairs, unpaid additional living expenses, and damaged or destroyed personal property.

The insurer alleged the plaintiffs committed fraud in their proofs of loss.

The court found no fraud, holding that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by raising the fraud allegation as a high-handed litigation strategy.

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the deficient home repairs, additional living expenses, and lost personal property, along with $100,000 in punitive damages against the insurer.