Calvin Ho

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant and its guarantor for breach of a commercial lease.

The tenant failed to take possession and begin fixturing the premises, arguing the landlord had not completed its work to satisfaction.

The court interpreted the lease, finding that the tenant was obliged to take possession when the landlord's work was "sufficiently complete to permit fixturing," not fully complete.

The tenant's failure to take possession constituted repudiation of the lease.

The court awarded the landlord damages, holding both the tenant and the guarantor liable.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought a motion seeking to declare a property transfer by the bankrupt to his spouse as a transfer at undervalue under section 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent opposed the motion and did not consent to it being heard by an Associate Judge sitting as a Registrar in Bankruptcy.

The Associate Judge traversed the motion to be heard by a Judge presiding over the Commercial List, leaving the issue of a registrar's jurisdiction to hear contested transfer at undervalue motions for another day.

In a receivership and bankruptcy proceeding, a dispute arose regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a property.

The 259 Group, a second mortgagee, had previously settled a motion regarding the distribution of holdback funds, resulting in a consent order.

The Trustee and a third mortgagee argued that this settlement finally determined the amount of indebtedness owed to the 259 Group, barring them from making a further secured claim in the bankruptcy.

The court applied the doctrine of issue estoppel and interpreted the consent order, concluding that the settlement only resolved the priority of the holdback funds, not the total indebtedness.

Therefore, the 259 Group was not barred from making a secured claim to the Trustee.

The applicant sought a bankruptcy order based on a loan debt that had become due more than two years before the bankruptcy application was commenced.

The respondent argued that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and therefore could not support a bankruptcy application.

The court held that the Limitations Act, 2002 bars a remedy but does not extinguish the underlying debt, meaning the debt may still constitute a debt “owing” for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court also found written acknowledgments of the debt within the limitation period that would revive the claim in any event.

The bankruptcy application was granted and a trustee appointed.