Bradley W Tyler Vermeersch

SPay Inc. sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision not to stay a receiver's motion for judgment in favour of international arbitration.

The motion judge had ruled that the arbitration provisions were inoperative due to Ontario's "single proceeding model" in insolvency cases, finding SPay was not a "stranger to the bankruptcy" because its proposed set-off against Mundo Media Ltd.'s largest account receivable effectively made it a creditor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, concluding that the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit and did not raise issues of general importance.

The court affirmed that insolvency courts have broad discretion to centralize proceedings, and that a party asserting a significant set-off is not a stranger to the insolvency, thus falling under the single proceeding model.

This motion, brought by SPay Inc., sought to stay a claim by Mundo Media Ltd.'s court-appointed Receiver, arguing the dispute should proceed via arbitration in New York as per their contracts.

The Receiver claimed SPay owed Mundo $4.1 million, while SPay intended to assert a set-off.

The court declined to follow the British Columbia Court of Appeal's reasoning in Petrowest Corporation v. Peace River Hydro Partners regarding a receiver's ability to disclaim arbitration clauses.

Instead, the court applied the "single proceeding model" in insolvency, finding that SPay was not a "stranger to the bankruptcy" due to the significant receivable and SPay's intention to assert a set-off.

The court held that justice and practicality demanded the claims be resolved within the Ontario receivership proceedings, rendering the arbitration agreement inoperative under Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Receiver.

These supplementary reasons address the costs arising from a refusals motion where The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company ("Manulife") was entirely successful.

Manulife sought $9,500.00 in partial indemnity costs.

Parc-IX Limited ("Parc-IX") argued the costs were excessive and requested a set-off for its own prior refusals motion.

The Master found Manulife's requested costs reasonable given the motion's complexity and extent.

A set-off of $4,500.00 was granted for Parc-IX's less complex motion.

Parc-IX was ordered to pay Manulife $5,000.00 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, by October 31, 2018, to be paid forthwith.

The plaintiff, Sun Rise Elephant Property Investment Corporation, brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on two condominium units owned by the defendants, Peter Luu and Adrienne Eunyin Wong.

The plaintiff alleged that it had paid deposits for the units through nominee purchasers and claimed a resulting and/or constructive trust over the properties due to the defendants' alleged failure to repay the deposits.

The court found that there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land, satisfying the initial threshold for a CPL.

However, upon considering the equitable factors (Dhunna factors), the court determined that the equities favored the defendants.

The court emphasized that a CPL is not intended to secure a claim for damages, and since the plaintiff's claim was primarily for monetary repayment and damages were easily calculable and a satisfactory remedy, the motion for leave to issue the CPL was dismissed.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer refused questions during cross-examinations of its witnesses, Nolan Rodrigues and Georges Gantcheff.

These cross-examinations arose from two applications concerning alleged breaches of a 99-year ground lease by the respondent, involving structural problems, municipal and fire code violations, and health and safety concerns in an apartment building.

The court applied principles governing the scope of cross-examination, emphasizing relevance to the issues in the pending applications or matters raised in affidavits, and proportionality.

The Master found all refused questions relevant and proportional, ordering the respondent to answer them.

A family-owned meat processing business went bankrupt, terminating approximately 800 employees.

Two representative actions were commenced: one by Sam Caetano for unionized employees and another by Debbie and Alex Abreu for non-unionized employees, alleging wrongful dismissal, common employment, conspiracy, and oppression against solvent related companies and individuals.

The defendants brought motions to stay the Caetano action for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss both representative actions as time-barred.

The court granted the jurisdiction motion, staying the Caetano action entirely, finding that claims by unionized employees under a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour tribunals.

The court also granted in part the limitations motion, dismissing the Caetano representative action as time-barred because the required Rule 12.08 representation order was not obtained prior to commencement.

However, the Abreu representative action, brought under Rule 10.01, was found not to be time-barred, but was allowed to proceed only on the condition that the plaintiffs forthwith obtain a representation order.

The plaintiff, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., brought an action against Brandon Moyse and West Face Capital Inc. for alleged misuse of confidential information regarding WIND Mobile Inc. and spoliation of documents.

Catalyst claimed Moyse, a former analyst, provided confidential information to West Face, which West Face then used to acquire an interest in WIND.

The court assessed the evidence, including witness credibility, and found no direct evidence of information transfer.

The court also examined the elements of breach of confidence and spoliation.

The action was dismissed in its entirety, with the defendants entitled to costs.