Bobby Sachdeva

Following a motion to vary dismissed in a prior decision, the applicants sought enhanced costs based on the respondents' alleged misconduct, including apparent AI hallucinations in counsel's reply factum.

The court identified seven paragraphs containing fabricated quotations attributed to real cases with correct neutral citations.

Counsel denied using AI and attributed the errors to carelessness and misreading.

The court expressed inability to reconcile the explanation with the nature of the errors and referred the matter to the Law Society of Ontario for investigation.

The costs of the motion to vary were resolved by consent on a substantial indemnity basis.

The bankrupt, a former real estate developer, sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee, the Canada Revenue Agency, and several creditors, who argued that the bankrupt's assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar for reasons he could be held responsible for, and that he failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in an asset protection strategy, incurred significant personal liabilities without the means to pay them, and failed to disclose his true post-bankruptcy lifestyle and use of a corporate credit card.

The court declined to refuse the discharge entirely but imposed a substantial conditional order requiring the bankrupt to pay $960,000 and fulfill various outstanding duties.

Following a successful motion to approve a proposal to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Proposal Trustee and the debtor sought costs against the sole opposing creditor.

The opposing creditor argued that costs should not be awarded against creditors in insolvency proceedings on policy grounds.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the creditor was not relieved from paying costs after unsuccessfully opposing the motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,000 to the Proposal Trustee and $20,226.44 to the debtor.

The moving party, having successfully obtained an order declaring that no secured indebtedness was owing by the debtor to a related company, sought costs of the motion.

The moving party sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing it undertook actions that benefited all creditors.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale at $89,339.63, payable jointly and severally by the debtor and the related company, as both had actively opposed the motion.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion for court approval of the debtor company's amended proposal to creditors under s. 58 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

An opposing creditor argued the proposal should be rejected under s. 59(3) because the debtor failed to perform its statutory duties by initially omitting the creditor's claim and a related party's secured debt from its statement of affairs.

The court found the debtor had failed in its duties but exercised its discretion to approve the proposal, noting the debtor provided reasonable security for the payments, the proposal offered a better return than bankruptcy, and it was supported by the vast majority of creditors.

The bankrupt brought a motion to compel a lawyer representing certain creditors to answer questions refused during a cross-examination on his affidavit.

The bankrupt alleged that the lawyer and his client obtained confidential information about the bankrupt's assets through unauthorized access to his email.

The lawyer refused to disclose the identity of his client or the client's source, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the identity of the client and the communications were presumptively privileged, the privilege had not been waived, and compelling the answers would violate the fairness and proportionality principles, especially given the bankrupt's failure to disclose an exculpatory expert report.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion for advice and directions, seeking an order to not undertake the adjudication of a proof of claim filed by Moroccanoil and a cross-motion by the insolvent Company, and instead lift the stay of proceedings to allow the claims to be determined in ongoing U.S. litigation.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that section 135(1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act unambiguously requires the Proposal Trustee to determine and value the claim, and the Court's inherent jurisdiction does not extend to displacing this mandatory statutory process.

In a bankruptcy proposal proceeding, a creditor (Moroccanoil) moved for an order declaring that no secured indebtedness was owing by the debtor (CHL) to a related company (BEI) and prohibiting a credit bid based on that debt.

The court found that the alleged debt, which consisted of management fees agreed to in 2019 for services rendered in previous years, was based entirely on past consideration.

Applying the rule that past consideration is not good consideration, the court held the agreement unenforceable and granted the order prohibiting the credit bid.

The applicant brought a consent motion to transfer a commercial lease application from Brampton to Toronto to be heard with a companion application.

The sole reason for the requested transfer was to secure an earlier hearing date, as the parties were dissatisfied with the dates available in Brampton.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the desire for an earlier hearing date does not justify transferring a proceeding to a jurisdiction with no connection to the matter, as doing so would inappropriately use other regions to arbitrage court schedules.

The plaintiff Receiver sued the defendant purchaser for damages after the purchaser failed to close a $12.2 million agreement of purchase and sale for a luxury residential property.

The purchaser argued he was entitled to terminate the agreement and receive his deposit back because the property suffered substantial water and mould damage prior to closing, and that the Receiver anticipatorily breached the agreement by refusing to extend the closing date.

The court found that the damage was not substantial, the Receiver did not repudiate the agreement, and the purchaser breached the contract by failing to close.

The Receiver was awarded over $5.3 million in damages, including the deficiency in the resale price, auction fees, and holding costs.

The applicants, judgment creditors of the respondents for over $26 million USD arising from a fraudulent lending scheme, moved to discontinue the payment of living expenses and legal fees to the respondents and their related trusts from the receivership estate.

The trusts brought a cross-motion to strike the Receiver's Eleventh Report, arguing the Receiver exceeded its mandate by tracing funds and making observations about badges of a sham trust.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the Receiver acted within its court-ordered investigatory powers and did not usurp the court's role.

The court granted the applicants' motion to terminate funding, holding that the respondents had exhausted their appeals, were now judgment debtors, and failed to meet the test for funding from frozen assets, as they had not provided full disclosure and the funds belonged to their creditors.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder in a taxi dispatch business, brought a motion to compel the defendants to satisfy outstanding undertakings and produce financial records, and to be added as a mandatory signing officer for cheques over $500.

The court granted the request for undertakings and production, ordering the defendants to provide the requested documentation.

However, the court dismissed the request for signing authority, finding insufficient evidence of oppressive conduct or financial mismanagement to justify overriding the Unanimous Shareholder's Agreement and altering the status quo pending trial.