B. Salsberg

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 60.12 to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence for failing to comply with a prior court order to pay costs forthwith.

The defendants claimed they intended to appeal the prior order but failed to file the notice of appeal or take concrete steps for months, citing health issues and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the defendants' explanations unconvincing and their delay deliberate.

Applying the principles for striking pleadings, the court granted a 'last chance' order, giving the defendants 30 days to comply with the prior order or obtain a stay, failing which their Statement of Defence would be struck.

The defendant sought an order fixing the quantum of security for costs after the court had already determined entitlement to security under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court had previously found the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity and that the action against the defendant had little chance of success, including a finding that there was good reason to believe the claim was frivolous and vexatious.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant’s claimed costs were excessive and accepted that the prolonged and evolving litigation justified significant defence costs.

The court ordered substantial security for costs and stayed the action pending payment.

On a preliminary motion common to four security for costs motions, the responding plaintiffs asserted impecuniosity.

The court held that impecuniosity requires full and frank financial disclosure, and that a corporate plaintiff bears the added burden of proving it cannot raise funds from shareholders or associates.

The evidence tendered by both the corporate plaintiff and the estate trustee plaintiff was vague, incomplete, and insufficiently documented, with major gaps concerning assets, liabilities, bank accounts, tax filings, shareholder loans, and the estate's financial position.

The court found neither plaintiff had established legal impecuniosity and directed the matter to proceed to further scheduling, with costs to be addressed if necessary.

The defendants were charged with creating an unauthorized security interest in a credit union contrary to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

They brought a motion to quash the Information, arguing it was laid outside the two-year statutory limitation period.

The court found that the regulatory agency had knowledge of the material facts more than three years before the charge was laid, and that the failure to share this information with the Superintendent in a timely manner frustrated the limitation period.

The motion was granted, the Information was quashed, and the charges were dismissed.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an interim settlement with the judgment debtor and related parties concerning disputed ownership and realization of a cottage property during receivership proceedings.

The moving party, a judgment creditor, opposed the settlement, arguing that stronger litigation prospects justified pursuing a declaration that the debtor solely owned the property.

The court applied the principle that courts generally defer to a receiver’s commercially reasonable business judgment where the receiver has fully analyzed the circumstances and considered stakeholder interests.

Considering litigation risk, potential appeals, mounting receivership costs, lack of estate funding, and the need for timely recovery for creditors, the court found the settlement commercially reasonable.

The settlement was therefore approved.

In receivership proceedings brought in aid of execution against a judgment debtor, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed receiver for directions regarding enforcement steps and the disposition of certain assets.

The receiver sought approval to sell the debtor’s interest in a jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act, clarification regarding ownership of a cottage property, compliance with outstanding information requests, and approval of the receiver’s reports.

The court held that the spouse opposing sale failed to demonstrate circumstances of oppression, malice, or vexatious intent that would justify refusing the statutory right to partition or sale.

The court ordered the sale of the debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home, directed the parties to provide requested information to the receiver, scheduled a hearing regarding ownership of the cottage and related indebtedness issues, and approved the receiver’s reports.

Following reasons granting the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution over a judgment debtor’s assets, the court determined costs of the motion.

The moving party sought full indemnity costs against the debtor and another respondent.

The court held that elevated costs were justified against the debtor because his conduct—including obstructing enforcement of the judgment, withholding financial information, colluding with others, and using corporate structures to avoid payment—constituted reprehensible behaviour aimed at frustrating enforcement.

However, no costs were ordered against another respondent who had not opposed the receivership application and whose asserted security interest remained to be determined.

Substantial indemnity costs of $53,126.62 were awarded against the judgment debtor.

The judgment creditor sought the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution over the debtor’s assets after the debtor failed to pay a substantial judgment arising from a settlement agreement.

The court found extensive evidence that the debtor had structured his financial affairs through closely‑held corporations and family arrangements to obstruct enforcement, including placing mortgages on assets, refusing to produce financial records, and channeling benefits through corporations while claiming little personal income.

The court also found troubling evidence suggesting that the debtor’s spouse participated in attempts to create secured claims and judgments designed to defeat other creditors.

Given the debtor’s obstruction of examinations, failure to comply with garnishment obligations, and complex corporate arrangements shielding assets, the court held that ordinary enforcement mechanisms would be ineffective.

A receiver in aid of execution was therefore appointed with investigative powers to examine the debtor’s interests and financial dealings.

The court considered a motion to approve a debtor proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act after creditor approval.

It held the proposal terms were not reasonable because key records were not produced, the trustee could not provide an opinion on exclusion provisions, and the proposed structure risked prejudice to creditor recovery rights.

The court also found statutory grounds requiring security were proved and concluded the offered funding did not satisfy the required security threshold.

The motion to approve the proposal was dismissed to protect creditor interests and the integrity of the insolvency process.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages to his fence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his application of the law of nuisance by requiring proof of causation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly identified causation as a pre-requisite to a finding of nuisance and made no error of law in dismissing the claim after finding the cause of the damage was completely unknown.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

At the hearing, all parties agreed that the appeal was moot, though they disagreed on when it became moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot and awarded costs of $1,000 to each of the two responding parties.