Cameron Neil

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) to sell a real estate development property to a third-party purchaser.

A second mortgagee and joint venture participant brought a cross-motion to redeem the property or, alternatively, for approval of its credit bid.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that allowing a redemption after a court-approved sale process had concluded would undermine the integrity of the process.

The court granted the receiver's motion, holding that the proposed sale satisfied the Soundair principles, as the receiver acted providently, considered all stakeholders' interests, and conducted a fair and commercially efficacious process.

The plaintiff sought costs of a motion necessitated by the defendant's failure to pay a prior costs order.

The defendant had stopped payment on a cheque and indicated no intention to pay voluntarily.

The court found the defendant's conduct reprehensible and awarded the plaintiff costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,105.44.

In a construction lien action, the defendant homeowners moved to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim and to substitute the affidavit evidence of a new expert witness for one who died after preparing his report.

The plaintiff contractor opposed the motion, arguing that the amendments would cause prejudice and delay the summary nature of the proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the defendants to rely on a live expert witness and fully articulate their claims regarding newly discovered deficiencies.

The plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in costs thrown away.

The applicant moved to amend a previous Superior Court order that dismissed its action, seeking to add a clause stating the dismissal was without prejudice to a parallel Small Claims Court action.

The court found that the applicant had obtained a default judgment in Small Claims Court without notice to the respondent and failed to disclose this to the Superior Court judge who dismissed the action the following day.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no justification to interfere with the Small Claims Court process and noting that the requirements for amending an order under Rule 59.06 were not met.

The court also noted significant evidence suggesting the applicant was a fictional entity created by a declared vexatious litigant using aliases.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction seeking to preserve rights under a motor fuel supply agreement with the defendants.

The agreement permitted termination without notice where the plaintiff failed to make required payments.

The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.) and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, given repeated breaches of the agreement including numerous NSF payments and failure to meet contractual obligations.

The court further held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured relief, particularly where alternative fuel suppliers could be obtained and evidence of business collapse was speculative.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.